Darby v. State of Ohio et al
Filing
11
Order: The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the Order of the Court. Darby's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dismissed. re 9 . Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 9/28/2015. (S,AL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Arthur Lee Darby,
Case No. 5:14-cv-00953
Petitioner
v.
ORDER
State of Ohio, et al.,
Respondents
Before me is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, filed on
August 6, 2015, recommending dismissal of Petitioner Arthur Lee Darby’s action seeking a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Under the relevant statute, “[w]ithin 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v.
Campbell, 261 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2001). In this case, the fourteen day period has elapsed and no
objections have been filed.
The failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation
constitutes a waiver of a 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 also United States v. Walters,
638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) ; Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th
Cir. 1987) (“only those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will
be preserved for appellate review”).
Following review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts
the Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the Order of the Court. Darby’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dismissed.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
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?