Townsend v. Foley

N.D. Ohio

Townsend v. Foley

DecidedMay 13, 2024

Docket1:21-cv-02264

StatusUnknown

This text of Townsend v. Foley (Townsend v. Foley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Townsend v. Foley, (N.D. Ohio 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

PEARSON, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

ALBERT TOWNSEND, ) ) CASE NO. 1:21-CV-2264 Petitioner, ) ) v. ) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON ) KEITH FOLEY, ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION Respondent. ) AND ORDER ) [Regarding ECF No. 1]

On March 8, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation denying Petitioner’s request for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The magistrate judge recommended the following: (i) Ground One be dismissed as procedurally defaulted or as noncognizable; (ii) Ground Two be dismissed as procedurally defaulted or denied as meritless; (iii) Ground Three be dismissed as procedurally defaulted or denied as meritless; (iv) Ground Four be denied as meritless; (v) Ground Five be denied as meritless; (vi) Ground Six be dismissed as procedurally defaulted or denied as meritless.

ECF No. 74 at PageID #: 3858. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service. In the instant case, objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by March 22, 2024. Petitioner requested an extension of thirty days to file objections, which the Court granted. Accordingly, Petitioner was to file any objections on or before May 3, 2024. ECF No. 79. Petitioner has not filed any objections. Petitioner was also advised that the Court will not review earlier filings for objections. ECF No. 79 at PageID #: 3875. Any further review by the Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981).

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge is hereby adopted. ECF No. 74. Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus petition is denied. 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.

May 13, 2024 /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Date Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PEARSON, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

ALBERT TOWNSEND, ) ) CASE NO. 1:21-CV-2264 Petitioner, ) ) v. ) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON ) KEITH FOLEY, ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION Respondent. ) AND ORDER ) [Regarding ECF No. 1]

On March 8, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation denying Petitioner’s request for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The magistrate judge recommended the following: (i) Ground One be dismissed as procedurally defaulted or as noncognizable; (ii) Ground Two be dismissed as procedurally defaulted or denied as meritless; (iii) Ground Three be dismissed as procedurally defaulted or denied as meritless; (iv) Ground Four be denied as meritless; (v) Ground Five be denied as meritless; (vi) Ground Six be dismissed as procedurally defaulted or denied as meritless.

ECF No. 74 at PageID #: 3858. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service. In the instant case, objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by March 22, 2024. Petitioner requested an extension of thirty days to file objections, which the Court granted. Accordingly, Petitioner was to file any objections on or before May 3, 2024. ECF No. 79. Petitioner has not filed any objections. Petitioner was also advised that the Court will not review earlier filings for objections. ECF No. 79 at PageID #: 3875. Any further review by the Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981).

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge is hereby adopted. ECF No. 74. Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus petition is denied. 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.

May 13, 2024 /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Date Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Townsend v. Foley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/townsend-v-foley-ohnd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack