McDuffie v. Jackson-Mitchell

Opinion

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

WILLIAM MCDUFFIE, Case No. 3:22-cv-00098-PAB

Petitioner, -vs- JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER

Magistrate Judge Amanda M. Knapp WARDEN WANZA JACKSON- MITCHELL, MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Respondent.

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Amanda M. Knapp (Doc. No. 11), which recommends denial of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pending before the Court. No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. STANDARD OF REVIEW When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court reviews the case de novo. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) provides in pertinent part: The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” In Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the Court held, “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” DECISION This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error, accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court hereby denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and

Recommendation, which is incorporated herein by reference. Furthermore, 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Pamela A. Barker PAMELA A. BARKER Date: January 22, 2025 U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE