Perry v. Warden Madison Correctional Institution

• Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
• Decided: March 7, 2023
• Docket: 4:20-cv-00369
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

VINCENT A. PERRY, ) CASE NO. 4:20-cv-369 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN ) v. ) ) WARDEN TOM SCHWEITZER, ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Respondent. )

Before the Court is the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge James E. Grimes, Jr. recommending that Vincent A. Perry’s (“Petitioner”) petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied. (Doc. No. 10 (Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).) 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 file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of any issue addressed in the R&R. 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). Petitioner is not represented by counsel. The docket reflects that a copy of the R&R, issued on January 17, 2023, was mailed to Petitioner at his address of record that same day. As of the date of this Opinion and Order, the mailed R&R has not been returned. Further, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction’s public website indicates that Petitioner remains incarcerated at Ross Correctional Institution, which is the facility listed on his petition and to which the R&R was mailed. The time period for filing objections, calculated from the date that the R&R was mailed to Petitioner, has passed and no objection by Petitioner has been received by the Court. See Peoples v. Hoover, 377 F. App’x 461, 463 (6th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that courts have enforced the rule requiring objection to a magistrate report regularly against pro se

litigants). The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. The Court accepts and adopts the same. Accordingly, Perry’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________ Date: March 7, 2023 BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE