Curry v. Gray

N.D. Ohio

Curry v. Gray

DecidedMarch 25, 2022

Docket1:19-cv-00594

StatusUnknown

This text of Curry v. Gray (Curry v. Gray) 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

Curry v. Gray, (N.D. Ohio 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ----------------------------------------------------------- : RONALD CURRY, : : CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00594 : Petitioner, : : vs. : OPINION AND ORDER : [Resolving Doc. 1 & 21] WARDEN DAVID W. GRAY, : : : Respondent. : : ------------------------------------------------------------

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Petitioner Ronald Curry was convicted in 2017 for a robbery, kidnapping, and rape that occurred in 1995 in East Cleveland.1 Curry was first linked to the crime when the State determined that Curry’s DNA matched a vaginal sample taken from one of the victims.2 After challenging his conviction in the Ohio courts on direct appeal and collateral review, Curry filed this federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.3 The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr. On March 8, 2022, Magistrate Judge Baughman issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissal and recommending denial of other parts of the petition.4 Objections to the report were due by March 22, 2022. Petitioner did not file objections.

1 Curry’s motion for a status conference is DENIED as moot. Doc. 21. 2 Doc 12-2 at 360. 3 Doc. 1. The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to review only the objected-to portions of an R&R.5 Failure to timely object waives a party’s right to contest the R&R.6 Where a party does not object to the R&R, the Court may adopt it without review.7 Here, Petitioner Curry has waived his right to contest the R&R by failing to file timely objections.8 Additionally, this Court has examined the petition and agrees with Judge Baughman’s merits analysis. None of Curry’s nine claims have merit: They are based in state law and non-cognizable on federal habeas review, are procedurally defaulted because Curry did not raise them in the state courts, and they fail the deferential AEDPA merits

standard. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Baughman’s R&R, incorporates it as if fully restated herein, and DENIES Petitioner Curry’s § 2254 habeas petition. The Court further DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability as reasonable jurists would not debate the petition’s lack of merit. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2022 JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 6 , 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985); , 938 F.3d 821, 827 (6th Cir. 2019) 7 , 474 U.S. at 149–50 8

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ----------------------------------------------------------- : RONALD CURRY, : : CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00594 : Petitioner, : : vs. : OPINION AND ORDER : [Resolving Doc. 1 & 21] WARDEN DAVID W. GRAY, : : : Respondent. : : ------------------------------------------------------------

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Petitioner Ronald Curry was convicted in 2017 for a robbery, kidnapping, and rape that occurred in 1995 in East Cleveland.1 Curry was first linked to the crime when the State determined that Curry’s DNA matched a vaginal sample taken from one of the victims.2 After challenging his conviction in the Ohio courts on direct appeal and collateral review, Curry filed this federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.3 The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr. On March 8, 2022, Magistrate Judge Baughman issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissal and recommending denial of other parts of the petition.4 Objections to the report were due by March 22, 2022. Petitioner did not file objections.

1 Curry’s motion for a status conference is DENIED as moot. Doc. 21. 2 Doc 12-2 at 360. 3 Doc. 1. The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to review only the objected-to portions of an R&R.5 Failure to timely object waives a party’s right to contest the R&R.6 Where a party does not object to the R&R, the Court may adopt it without review.7 Here, Petitioner Curry has waived his right to contest the R&R by failing to file timely objections.8 Additionally, this Court has examined the petition and agrees with Judge Baughman’s merits analysis. None of Curry’s nine claims have merit: They are based in state law and non-cognizable on federal habeas review, are procedurally defaulted because Curry did not raise them in the state courts, and they fail the deferential AEDPA merits

standard. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Baughman’s R&R, incorporates it as if fully restated herein, and DENIES Petitioner Curry’s § 2254 habeas petition. The Court further DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability as reasonable jurists would not debate the petition’s lack of merit. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2022 JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 6 , 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985); , 938 F.3d 821, 827 (6th Cir. 2019) 7 , 474 U.S. at 149–50 8

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Curry v. Gray, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curry-v-gray-ohnd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack