Gregley v. Bradshaw

Filing 8

Memorandum of Opinion and Order Adopting 7 Report and Recommendation and dismissing petition as time-barred. 3 Petitioner's Motion for expansion of the record denied as moot. Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 9/19/14. (P,R)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION DUANE GREGLEY, Petitioner, vs. MARGARET BRADSHAW, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:14CV50 JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George Limbert (“R & R”) (Doc. # 7). The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss as time-barred Petitioner Duane Gregley’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus (“2254 Petition”)(Doc. # 1). The R&R also recommends that the Court deny as moot Gregley’s pending motion to expand the record (Doc. # 3). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) a habeas petitioner has 14 days after being served a copy of the R&R to file written objections. A copy of the R&R was mailed to Petitioner on August 29, 2014. In this case, 21 days have elapsed since the R&R was issued, and Petitioner has filed neither an objection nor a request for an extension of time to file one. Failure to file objections by the deadline constitutes a waiver of the right to obtain a de novo review of the R&R in the district court, United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949 (6th Cir. 1981), and a waiver of the right to appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and agrees that the 2254 Petition should be dismissed as time-barred and that the pending motion to expand the record should be denied as moot. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. # 7). IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Dan Aaron Polster September 19, 2014 Dan Aaron Polster United States District Judge -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?