Mines v. U.S., 2:17-CR-00091. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20190225d97
Visitors: 21
Filed: Feb. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2019
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. , Chief District Judge . On January 16, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 50) be granted and that the Amended Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (ECF Nos. 44, 51) be dismissed. (ECF No. 59.) Although the parties were advised of the right to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and of the consequences of failing to do so,
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. , Chief District Judge . On January 16, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 50) be granted and that the Amended Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (ECF Nos. 44, 51) be dismissed. (ECF No. 59.) Although the parties were advised of the right to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and of the consequences of failing to do so, n..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR., Chief District Judge.
On January 16, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 50) be granted and that the Amended Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF Nos. 44, 51) be dismissed. (ECF No. 59.) Although the parties were advised of the right to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and of the consequences of failing to do so, no objections have been filed.
The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 59) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED. The Amended Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF Nos. 44, 51) is hereby DISMISSED.
Petitioner has waived his right to appeal by failing to file objections. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Therefore, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealabililty.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
