Brown v. Bradshaw
Memorandum of Opinion and Order: For the reasons set forth herein and for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which is incorporated herein, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed withou t prejudice. Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed.R.App.P. 22(b). Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 3/8/18. (LC,S) re 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Margaret Bradshaw, Warden
CASE NO. 1:16 CV 838
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
Memorandum of Opinion and Order
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge David Ruiz (Doc. 16) which recommends dismissal without prejudice of the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus pending before the Court. No objections to the recommendation
were filed. For the following reasons, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED.
Standard of Review
Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts provides, “The judge must determine de novo any proposed finding or
recommendation to which objection is made. The judge may accept, reject, or modify any
proposed finding or recommendation.” When no objections have been filed this Court need
only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation. See Advisory Committee Notes 1983 Addition to Federal Rule of Civil
The Court has made a clear error review and agrees with the following reasoning of
the Magistrate Judge. Petitioner pleaded guilty in connection with two separate cases: CR13-580090 and CR-13-580403. After the herein Petition was filed, petitioner filed two
motions in the state court to withdraw his guilty plea. Petitioner appealed the denial of the
motions. The state court of appeals ultimately dismissed the appeal in the 580090 case as
moot given that, in the meantime, the trial court had vacated the guilty plea and conviction in
that case. As petitioner would no longer be in state custody on that case, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that the Petition based on that case should be dismissed as moot. With regard to
580403, petitioner moved again in the trial court in July 2017 to withdraw his plea on a basis
stated in the court of appeals decision. As he is still litigating his guilty plea in that case in
the state courts, petitioner’s first ground for relief herein has not been exhausted. To allow
for exhaustion in the state court, the Petition should be dismissed without prejudice.
Having no objections, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and
found no clear error. Accordingly, it accepts the recommendation.
For the reasons set forth herein and for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, which is incorporated herein, the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus is dismissed without prejudice. Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there
is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Court
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?