Neff v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

JAMES C. NEFF,

Petitioner, Case No. 1:19-cv-392 v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

Respondent. ORDER On February 5, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10), which found this Court lacks jurisdiction over this habeas petition because it is a successive habeas petition within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The Magistrate Judge recommended this Court transfer the petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to review and determine whether this Court may consider the successive claims for relief. The Report & Recommendation advised the Parties that a failure to object within the 14 days specified by the Report & Recommendation may result in forfeiture of rights on appeal, which includes the right to District Court review. (See Doc. 10, #502). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–53 (1985) (“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.”); 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); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The time for filing objections has passed and none have been filed. Thus, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) and DIRECTS the Clerk to TRANSFER the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) to the Sixth Circuit for review. SO ORDERED.

February 24, 2020 : DATE DOUGLAS R. COL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE