Gilbert v. Hudson

Filing 12

Memorandum of Opinion and Order Adopting 11 Report and Recommendation and denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254). Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 10/5/09. (P,R)

Gilbert v. Hudson

Doc. 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

LARRY GILBERT, Petitioner, vs. STEWART HUDSON, Respondent.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 1:08 CV 1867 Judge Dan Aaron Polster MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

On August 31, 2009, Magistrate Judge James S. Gallas issued a Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge ("R&R") (ECF No. 11). Therein, Magistrate Judge Gallas recommends that the Court deny the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("§ 2254 Habeas Petition") filed by Petitioner Larry Gilbert (ECF No. 1). Under the relevant statute: Within ten 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) (1988) (emphasis added). It is now October 5, 2009. Five weeks have elapsed since the R&R was issued, and Gilbert has filed neither objections nor a request for an extension of time to file objections.

Dockets.Justia.com

The failure to timely file written objections to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation constitutes waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court has reviewed the R&R (ECF No. 11) and hereby ADOPTS it. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the § 2254 Habeas Petition (ECF No. 1). IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Dan Aaron Polster October 5, 2009 Dan Aaron Polster United States District Judge

-2-