Tucker v. Bobby

Filing 75

Memorandum of Opinion and Order. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 74 ); DISMISSES Petitioner's Amended Grounds for Relief as procedurally default (Ground One) and non-cognizable (Ground Two); and DENIES the Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 40 ). The Court finds an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Since 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. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 7/22/21. (S,HR)

Case: 1:07-cv-00451-CAB Doc #: 75 Filed: 07/22/21 1 of 2. PageID #: 2205

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER L. TUCKER,
Petitioner,
vs.
KENNETH BLACK, Warden,1
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:07CV451
SENIOR JUDGE
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
MEMORANDUM OF
OPINION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, S.J.:
This matter is before on the court on Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Henderson’s Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 74) to deny Petitioner Tucker’s Amended Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 40) as procedurally defaulted and noncognizable. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by June 8, 2021. Petitioner
has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation and there is no indication that
Petitioner did not receive the Report and Recommendation.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides that objections to a report and
recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Petitioner has failed to timely file any such objection. Therefore, the Court must assume that
Petitioner is satisfied with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Any further review by this

1

The new warden at Richland Correctional Institution is Kenneth Black and thus the proper Respondent in this case.
(https://drc.ohio.gov/rici, last accessed July 21, 2021).

Case: 1:07-cv-00451-CAB Doc #: 75 Filed: 07/22/21 2 of 2. PageID #: 2206

Court would be duplicative and an inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
(Doc. 74); DISMISSES Petitioner’s Amended Grounds for Relief as procedurally default (Ground
One) and non-cognizable (Ground Two); and DENIES the Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. 40).
The Court finds an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3). Since 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/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: July 22, 2021 

2