District Court, N.D. Ohio, 2026

Douglas J. Haines v. Warden Shelbie Smith

Douglas J. Haines v. Warden Shelbie Smith
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Decided January 6, 2026
Douglas J. Haines v. Warden Shelbie Smith

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION DOUGLAS J. HAINES, ) CASE NO. 1:24-CV-02134 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE CHARLES ESQUE FLEMING ) vs. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) JAMES E. GRIMES JR. WARDEN SHELBIE SMITH, ) ) OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING Respondent. ) MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND ) RECOMMENDATION On December 5, 2024, Petitioner Douglas J. Haines (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). On October 29, 2025, Magistrate Judge James E. Grimes filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny and dismiss the Petition. (ECF No. 11).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that a party may object to a Magistrate Judge’s R&R within 14 days after service. The R&R also gave Petitioner notice of the 14-day time limit for filing objections. (Id. at PageID #480). On October 29, 2025, a copy of the R&R was mailed to Petitioner at the Belmont Correctional Institution. (Id.). On December 1, 2025, Petitioner requested an extension of time to file objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 12). On December 3, 2025, the Court ordered Petitioner to file any objections by January 2, 2026. (Order [non- document] dated 12/3/2025). Petitioner has not filed any objections to date.

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 an R&R without further review. See Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939 (1991); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 141–142 (1985).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Grimes’ 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); ULS.C. § 2253(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 6, 2026 □□□ CHARLES ESQUE FLEMING UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.