Lenard v. Luneke

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD LENARD, CASE NO. 1:24 CV 1752

Petitioner,

v. JUDGE JAMES R. KNEPP II

WARDEN JAY FORSHEY,1 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND Respondent. ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) to deny and dismiss Petitioner Richard Lenard’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 12). Specifically, Judge Armstrong recommends Petitioner’s sole ground for relief be dismissed as: (1) non-cognizable to the extent the claim is based on the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial or trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on that motion, and (2) time-barred, procedurally defaulted, and/or meritless, to the extent Petitioner argues his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because he did not receive a trial by an impartial jury. Id. at 15-31. Under the relevant statute: Within fourteen days of being served with a copy [of a Magistrate Judge’s R&R], 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.

1. The R&R correctly notes that because Petitioner is now incarcerated at Noble Correctional Institution, the warden of that facility is now the proper Respondent in this case. See Doc. 12, at 1 n.1; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004); 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (“The writ . . . shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained.”). The Court therefore substitutes Warden Jay Forshey as Respondent.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The failure to file timely written objections to a Magistrate Judge’s R&R constitutes a waiver of de novo review by the district court of any issues covered in the R&R. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813, 814-15 (6th Cir. 1984); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). In this case, the R&R was issued on August 5, 2025, and it is now September 8, 2025.

Petitioner has neither filed objections nor requested an extension of time to file them. Despite the lack of objections, the Court has reviewed Judge Armstrong’s R&R and agrees with the findings and recommended rulings therein. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS Judge Armstrong’s R&R (Doc. 12) as the Order of this Court and DENIES and DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition (Doc. 1) as set forth therein. The Court finds an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Further, because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right directly related to his conviction or custody, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Rule 11 of Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ James R. Knepp II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 8, 2025