Howard v. May

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 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). Petitioner additionally filed a motion to stay. (ECF No. 2). On July 21, 2023, Respondent opposed Petitioner’s motion to stay. (ECF No. 5). On January 5, 2024, Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Henderson submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court deny the motion to stay and allow Petitioner thirty days to file a traverse in support of his petition. (ECF No. 9).

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. 9). On January 5, 2024, a copy of the R&R was mailed to Petitioner. As of February 22, 2024, 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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, 501 U.S. 923, 939 (1991); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 141–42, 149–50 (1985).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Henderson’s Report and Recommendation, incorporates it fully herein by reference, and DENIES Petitioner’s motion to stay. Petitioner shall file a traverse in support of his petition by March 25, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 22, 2024 Huse CHARLES E. FLEMING UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE