UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

RAYSEAN HOWARD, ) CASE NO. 1:23-CV-1174 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE CHARLES E. FLEMING ) vs. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) CARMEN E. HENDERSON WARDEN HAROLD MAY, ) ) OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING Respondent. ) MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND ) RECOMMENDATION

On June 12, 2023, Petitioner Raysean Howard (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), pursuant to

. (ECF No. 1). On May 9, 2024, Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Henderson submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court deny the Petition in its entirety because all the grounds are non- cognizable, procedurally defaulted, or meritless. (ECF No. 11). Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that the parties may object to an R&R within fourteen (14) days after service. The R&R gave the parties notice of the 14-day time limit for filing objections. (ECF No. 11). As of the date of this decision, neither party filed any objections. Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which the parties objected.

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Absent objection, a district court may adopt an R&R without further review. See Peretz v. US,

(1991); Thomas v. Arn,

, 141–42, 149–50 (1985). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Henderson’s Report and Recommendation, incorporates it fully herein by reference, and DENIES the Petition. The Court also finds that there is no basis upon which to issue, and will not issue, a certificate of appealability. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b);

(c). The Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: July 1, 2024 “edb Hue CHARLES E. FLEMING UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE