Weathersbee v. Gray

N.D. Ohio

Weathersbee v. Gray

DecidedJuly 24, 2023

Docket1:20-cv-01423

StatusUnknown

This text of Weathersbee v. Gray (Weathersbee v. Gray) 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

Weathersbee v. Gray, (N.D. Ohio 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

BERNARD WEATHERSBEE, ) ) CASE NO. 1:20-CV-1423 Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN ) WARDEN DAVID GRAY, ) ) OPINION AND ORDER Defendant. )

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Henderson, recommending that Bernard Weathersbee’s (“Petitioner”) petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied. (Doc. No. 12.) Once a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, 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 a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of any issue addressed in the report and recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Petitioner is not represented by counsel. The R&R was issued on April 25, 2023. (Doc. No. 12.) On May 8, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to the R&R. (Doc. No. 13.) On May 10, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion and ordered his objection be filed by May 30, 2023. (5/10/2023 Non-Document Order.) The time period for filing objections 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 R&R and adopts the same. Accordingly, Weathersbee’s

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied. The Court certifies that there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. ____________________________________ BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN Date: July 24, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

BERNARD WEATHERSBEE, ) ) CASE NO. 1:20-CV-1423 Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN ) WARDEN DAVID GRAY, ) ) OPINION AND ORDER Defendant. )

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Henderson, recommending that Bernard Weathersbee’s (“Petitioner”) petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied. (Doc. No. 12.) Once a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, 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 a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of any issue addressed in the report and recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Petitioner is not represented by counsel. The R&R was issued on April 25, 2023. (Doc. No. 12.) On May 8, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to the R&R. (Doc. No. 13.) On May 10, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion and ordered his objection be filed by May 30, 2023. (5/10/2023 Non-Document Order.) The time period for filing objections 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 R&R and adopts the same. Accordingly, Weathersbee’s

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied. The Court certifies that there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. ____________________________________ BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN Date: July 24, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Weathersbee v. Gray, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weathersbee-v-gray-ohnd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack