Harris v. Wainwright

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Harris v. Wainwright

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

LOWELL HARRIS, ) CASE NO. 1:21-CV-00860 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE CHARLES ESQUE FLEMING ) vs. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) JAMES E. GRIMES, JR. WARDEN LYNEAL WAINWRIGHT, ) ) OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING Respondent. ) MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND ) RECOMMENDATION

On April 26, 2021, Petitioner Lowell Harris (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254

. (ECF No. 1). On December 8, 2023, Magistrate Judge James E. Grimes, Jr. filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny and dismiss the Petition. (ECF No. 12). Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that the parties may object to a Magistrate Judge’s R&R within 14 days after service. The R&R also gave the parties notice of the 14-day time limit for filing objections. (ECF No. 12, PageID# 1342). This Court gave Petitioner significantly longer— over 45 days—to object to the R&R, but as of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed. Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which the parties have objected.

28 U.S.C. § 636

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

501 U.S. 923, 939

(1991); Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140, 141-42

(1985). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Grimes’s R&R, incorporates it fully herein by reference, and DENIES and DISMISSES the Petition. The Court also CERTIFIES, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision cannot be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 28 ULS.C. § 2253(c). IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: January 24, 2024 “ad, Hinvg CHARLES ESQUE FLEMING UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown