UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL JASON MILLER

Petitioner, Case No. 1:18-cv-424 v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE Magistrate Judge Litkovitz WARDEN, CORRECTIONAL RECEPTION CENTER

Respondent.

ORDER This cause comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s May 28, 2020, Report and Recommendation ((“R&R”), Doc. 17). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court DENY the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), which asserted a single claim that Petitioner’s trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The Magistrate Judge found that the state courts’ adjudication of this claim was not “contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent,” (R&R at #323), and thus denied relief. The R&R advised both parties that 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 R&R at #329). See also Thomas v. Arn,

(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,

(6th Cir. 2019) (noting “fail[ure] to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s R & R … is forfeiture”);

(b)(1)(C). Nearly four months have now passed, and Miller has yet to file an objection to the R&R. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) and DENIES the Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. As reasonable jurists could not disagree with this conclusion, the Court denies Miller a certificate of appealability, and the Court certifies to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous.

SO ORDERED.

September 22, 2020 DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE