Ray v. May

Opinion

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

TAQUASHONE RAY, CASE NO. 4:24 CV 264

Petitioner,

v. JUDGE JAMES R. KNEPP II

WARDEN HAROLD MAY, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND Respondent. ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) to deny Petitioner Taquashone Ray’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 16). Specifically, Judge Greenberg recommends the Court find all three of Petitioner’s grounds for relief procedurally defaulted. See id. at 11-12. He further alternatively recommends that: Ground One be denied as non-cognizable; Ground Two be denied on the merits; and Ground Three be denied as non-cognizable and on the merits. See id. at 15-27. Under the relevant statute: Within fourteen days after 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.

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 September 3, 2025, and it is now October 9, 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 Greenberg’s R&R and agrees with the findings and recommended rulings therein. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS Judge Greenberg’s R&R (Doc. 16) as the Order of this Court and DENIES 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: October 9, 2025