Charles Albert Reed v. Warden Misty Mackey

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

CHARLES ALBERT REED, ) CASE NO. 5:25-cv-00228 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN ) v. ) ) WARDEN MISTY MACKEY, ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Respondent. )

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Darrell A. Clay recommending that Charles Albert Reed’s (“Petitioner”) pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied. (Doc. 10.) Under the relevant statute: Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (flush language). The failure to timely file written objections to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge constitutes a forfeiture of de novo review by the district court. Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 146-52, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985) (upholding Sixth Circuit’s waiver/forfeiture rule as within its supervisory powers and consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)). The R&R was issued on November 17, 2025. (Doc. 10.) The R&R plainly stated the consequences for failing to timely submit objections. (Id.) The docket reflects the R&R was mailed to Petitioner at his address of record, that being the Lake Erie Correctional Institution, the same day. As of the date of this Opinion and Order, the R&R has not been returned as undeliverable. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction’s public website indicates Petitioner remains incarcerated at Lake Erie Correctional Institution. The Court finds that the time for filing objections has passed with Petitioner stating no objection to the R&R. See Peoples v. Hoover, 377 F. App’x 461, 463 (6th Cir. 2010) (recognizing courts have enforced the rule requiring objection to a magistrate report regularly against pro se litigants). The Court has reviewed the R&R. For the reasons stated therein, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, Charles Albert Reed’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. The Court further certifies that there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: March 9, 2026 ¢ wh tai □□ — UNITED STATESDISTRICT JUDGE