Charles Albert Reed v. Warden Misty Mackey

N.D. Ohio

Charles Albert Reed v. Warden Misty Mackey

DecidedMarch 9, 2026

Docket5:25-cv-00228

StatusUnknown

This text of Charles Albert Reed v. Warden Misty Mackey (Charles Albert Reed v. Warden Misty Mackey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles Albert Reed v. Warden Misty Mackey, (N.D. Ohio 2026).

Pincite

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Charles Albert Reed v. Warden Misty Mackey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-albert-reed-v-warden-misty-mackey-ohnd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack