UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ----------------------------------------------------------- : BRADLEY L. BRADFORD, : : CASE NO. 1:19-cv-817 : Petitioner, : : vs. : OPINION AND ORDER : [Resolving Doc. 1] BRANDESHAWN HARRIS, : Warden, : : Respondent. : : ------------------------------------------------------------

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On April 12, 2019, Petitioner Bradley L. Bradford, an Ohio inmate serving an 11-year aggregate sentence for his role in a gang-related drive-by shooting, petitioned this court for federal habeas corpus relief under

Petitioner argued only that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle and discharging a firearm into a habitation.2 The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz. On February 25, 2020, Magistrate Judge Ruiz issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) finding that Petitioner Bradford’s sufficiency of the evidence claim was both procedurally defaulted and meritless.3 Magistrate Judge Ruiz accordingly recommended that

1 Doc. 1. 2 Bradford be denied § 2254 relief. Objections to the R&R were due by March 11, 2021.4 Petitioner Bradford filed no objections. The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a review only of those portions of an R&R to which the parties have made an objection.5 Failure to timely object waives a party’s right to appeal the magistrate’s report.6 Where a party does not object to the R&R, a district court may adopt it without review.7 Additionally, this Court has examined the petition and the return and agrees that Petitioner Bradford’s sufficiency of the evidence claim is procedurally defaulted and

meritless. Accordingly, in light of Petitioner Bradford’s decision not to object to the R&R in this case, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Ruiz’s R&R, incorporates it as if fully restated herein, and DENIES Petitioner Bradford’s § 2254 habeas petition. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 22, 2021 JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 5

(b)(1). 6 ,

(1985); ,

, 827 (6th Cir. 2019) 7 , 474 U.S. at 149–50