Lenhart v. Evros
Order Adopting as its own, Judge Knepp's Report and Recommendation 13 . In the alternative,the court finds that, even upon de novo review, Magistrate Judge Knepps findings are well taken, and adopts as its own his R&R for the reasons s tated in the R&R. Accordingly, the court hereby dismisses Lenharts § 2254 Petition (ECF No. 1 ) for procedural default and enters judgment for Respondent against Petitioner. The court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. 2/27/17(C,KA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CHRISTOPHER E. LENHART, Pro Se,
Case No.: 1:15 CV 2440
JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
On November 25, 2015, Petitioner Christopher E. Lenhart (“Lenhart”) filed a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“§ 2254 Petition”) in the above-captioned case,
challenging his convictions for burglary, kidnaping, failure to provide notice of change of address,
and intimidation of a crime victim or witness. (Pet., ECF No. 1, at 1.) Lenhart sets forth three
grounds for relief in his § 2254 Petition: (1) unlawful retroactive application of a statute; (2)
ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) a changed indictment in violation of the Grand Jury Clause.
(Id. at 5,7-8.)
The court referred this case to Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II (“Judge Knepp”),
pursuant to Local Rule 72.2, on December 29, 2015, for preparation of a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”). On April 7, 2016, Respondent Ronald Erdos (“Respondent”) filed a
Return of Writ (ECF No. 10). On April 21, 2016, Petitioner filed a Traverse (ECF No. 11).
On February 6, 2017, Judge Knepp submitted an R&R, recommending that Lenhart’s § 2254
Petition be dismissed for being procedurally defaulted. (R&R at 10-21, ECF No. 13.) Specifically,
Judge Knepp explained that Lenhart failed to properly and timely present his arguments for appeal
in all of the appropriate levels of the Ohio state courts, and thus, failed to exhaust his state court
remedies. (Id.) Judge Knepp further found that Lenhart has not established cause and prejudice to
excuse the default, nor has he shown that the alleged constitutional violation resulted in the
conviction of an innocent individual. (Id.)
As of the date of this Order, Lenhart has not filed objections to the R&R. By failing to
timely object, Lenhart waived the right to appeal this court’s Order. See United States v. Walters,
638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). After careful review of Judge
Knepp’s R&R and all other relevant documents in the record, the court finds no clear error. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note; Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not
appear that Congress intended to require the district court review of a magistrate [judge’s] factual
or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those
Thus, the court adopts as its own Judge Knepp’s R&R. (ECF No. 13.) In the alternative,
the court finds that, even upon de novo review, Magistrate Judge Knepp’s findings are well taken,
and adopts as its own his R&R for the reasons stated in the R&R.
Accordingly, the court hereby dismisses Lenhart’s § 2254 Petition (ECF No. 1) for
procedural default and enters judgment for Respondent against Petitioner. The court certifies that,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith,
and that there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2015).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/S/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
February 27, 2017
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?