IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Patrick W. Griffin, Case No. 1:17CV917

Petitioner

v. ORDER

Alan J. Lazaroff, Warden,

Respondent

This is a state prisoner’s habeas corpus case under

. Pending is Magistrate Judge Ruiz’s Report and Recommendation, which recommends that I deny the petition because the petitioner procedurally defaulted his claims. (Doc. 30). The Magistrate Judge notified the parties that any objections to the R&R were due within fourteen days after the filing of his R&R, which occurred on July 31, 2019. Because the petitioner did not file an objection, he forfeited his right to de novo review of the R&R. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231,

, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). I need only “satisfy [myself] that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Bogan v. Morgan,

, *1 (N.D. Ohio 2012) (Gaughan, J.). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, I am satisfied that it properly disposes of this case on procedural default grounds. It is, therefore, ORDERED THAT: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 30) be, and the same hereby is, adopted as the order of the court. 2. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be, and the same hereby is, denied. 3. No certificate of appealability will issue. So ordered. /s/ James G. Carr Sr. U.S. District Judge