Douglas J. Haines v. Warden Shelbie Smith

N.D. Ohio

Douglas J. Haines v. Warden Shelbie Smith

DecidedJanuary 6, 2026

Docket1:24-cv-02134

StatusUnknown

This text of Douglas J. Haines v. Warden Shelbie Smith (Douglas J. Haines v. Warden Shelbie Smith) 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

Douglas J. Haines v. Warden Shelbie Smith, (N.D. Ohio 2026).

Pincite

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); 28 ULS.C. § 2253(c). IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: January 6, 2026 □□□ CHARLES ESQUE FLEMING UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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

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); 28 ULS.C. § 2253(c). IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: January 6, 2026 □□□ CHARLES ESQUE FLEMING UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Douglas J. Haines v. Warden Shelbie Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-j-haines-v-warden-shelbie-smith-ohnd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack