Kocevar v. Swartz

N.D. Ohio

Kocevar v. Swartz

DecidedJuly 3, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-00876

StatusUnknown

This text of Kocevar v. Swartz (Kocevar v. Swartz) 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

Kocevar v. Swartz, (N.D. Ohio 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION PEYTON J. KOCEVAR ) CASE NO. 3:24-CV-00876 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS ) -vs- ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION MICHAEL SWARTZ ) AND ORDER Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) This matter came before the Court on Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Doc. 1. This Court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge who submitted a report and recommendation recommending that the Court deny the petition. Doc. 7. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) provides that the parties may object to a report and recommendation within 14 days after service. Petitioner did not file any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. Any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby adopted. The Petition for Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(A)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED Dated: July 2, 2025 /s/ John R. Adams_______________ 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 PEYTON J. KOCEVAR ) CASE NO. 3:24-CV-00876 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS ) -vs- ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION MICHAEL SWARTZ ) AND ORDER Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) This matter came before the Court on Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Doc. 1. This Court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge who submitted a report and recommendation recommending that the Court deny the petition. Doc. 7. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) provides that the parties may object to a report and recommendation within 14 days after service. Petitioner did not file any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. Any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby adopted. The Petition for Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(A)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED Dated: July 2, 2025 /s/ John R. Adams_______________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kocevar v. Swartz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kocevar-v-swartz-ohnd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack