McCauley v. United States, 2:20-cv-514; 2:17-cr-90. (2020)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20200320b60
Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 19, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2020
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL H. WATSON , District Judge . On February 20, 2020, the Magistrate Judge Issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that Petitioner's motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 be denied as time-barred pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District courts ("the Habeas Rules"). R&R, ECF No. 214. Although the parties were advised of the right to object to the R&R, and of the consequences of failing to do so, no objectio
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL H. WATSON , District Judge . On February 20, 2020, the Magistrate Judge Issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that Petitioner's motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 be denied as time-barred pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District courts ("the Habeas Rules"). R&R, ECF No. 214. Although the parties were advised of the right to object to the R&R, and of the consequences of failing to do so, no objection..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL H. WATSON, District Judge.
On February 20, 2020, the Magistrate Judge Issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that Petitioner's motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be denied as time-barred pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District courts ("the Habeas Rules"). R&R, ECF No. 214. Although the parties were advised of the right to object to the R&R, and of the consequences of failing to do so, no objections have been filed. The R&R, ECF No. 214, is therefore, ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter final judgment.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) and Rule 11 of the Habeas Rules, the Court must determine whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Because Petitioner waived the right to file an appeal by failing to file objections to the R&R, see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981), the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
