Hinton v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Hinton v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

MORRIS K. HINTON, JR.,

Petitioner, Case No. 1:19-cv-977 v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE Magistrate Judge Bowman WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent.

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s March 13, 2020, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 11). The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court dismiss Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5) for lack of prosecution. The R&R advised the Petitioner that a failure to object within the 14 days specified by the R&R may result in forfeiture of rights on appeal, which includes the right to District Court review. (See Doc. 11, #126). See also Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140

, 149–53 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); Berkshire v. Beauvais,

928 F.3d 520

, 530–31 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting “fail[ure] to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R … is forfeiture, not waiver”) (emphasis original);

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). The time for filing objections has passed and none have been filed. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 11) and DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5) WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of prosecution. SO ORDERED.

April 10, 2020 DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown