Fields v. Davis

District Court, N.D. Ohio·Decided April 3, 2025·No. 1:23-cv-00239·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

KURTIS FIELDS, ) CASE NO. 1:23-cv-00239 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN ) v. ) ) WARDEN GEORGE A. FREDRICK, ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Respondent. )

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge James E. Grimes, Jr. (Doc. 16) recommending that Kurtis Fields’ (“Petitioner”) pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied. Once a magistrate judge issues a report, the relevant statute provides:

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 R&R constitutes a waiver of a de novo review by the district court. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985); see also United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). The R&R was issued on February 19, 2025. The docket reflects the R&R was mailed to Petitioner at his address of record, that being the Marion 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 Marion 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). Having reviewed the R&R in its entirety, the Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the R&R. Accordingly, Fields’ 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: April 3, 2025 BRI J 2 MEEHAN As ENNAN UNITED STAT ISTRICT JUDGE

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

Fields v. Davis, (N.D. Ohio 2025).

Fields v. Davis (Fields v. Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Jeral Peoples v. Brian Hoover
377 F. App'x 461 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
Kathy Thomas v. Dorothy Arn
728 F.2d 813 (Sixth Circuit, 1984)