Ellington v. Warden, Southeastern Correctional Institution

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

KIRMAREY ELLINGTON,

Petitioner, Case No. 1:19-cv-672 v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE Magistrate Judge Merz WARDEN, SOUTHEASTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent. ORDER On July 6, 2020, Magistrate Judge Merz issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) (Doc. 17) recommending that this Court dismiss with prejudice Petitioner Kirmarey Ellington’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) because Ellington’s four grounds for relief lacked merit (see R&R at 6, 11, 15, 18, #1110, 1115, 1119, 1122). The R&R advised the parties that a failure to object within the 14 days specified by the R&R may result in forfeiture of rights on appeal, which includes the right to District Court review. (See id. at 19, #1123). Now, the time period for objection has run, and no party has objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985); see also Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530–31 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting “fail[ure] to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R … is forfeiture, not waiver”) (emphasis in original). Thus, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Merz’s R&R (Doc. 17) and hereby DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Ellington’s Petition (Doc. 1). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. SO ORDERED.

July 30, 2020 DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE