Jackson v. Lazaroff

Filing 42

Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety and dismissing Jacksons 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254). The court also certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal fro m 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). Related document 41 . Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 9/28/2018. (R,Sh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

CLIFFORD D. JACKSON, III,
Petitioner
v.
ALAN LAZAROFF, Warden,
Respondent

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16 CV 2072

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

ORDER

On August 18 2016, Petitioner Clifford D. Jackson, III (“Petitioner” or “Jackson”) filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) (Pet., ECF No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in
the above-captioned case, challenging the constitutionality of his convictions.
Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2, this court referred the case to Magistrate Judge George J.
Limbert (“Magistrate Judge” or “Judge Limbert”), on August 29, 2016, for preparation of a Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”).
On September 6, 2018, Judge Limbert submitted an R&R, recommending that this court
dismiss the Petition in its entirety with prejudice. (R&R 22, ECF No. 41.) As of the date of this
Order, Petitioner has not filed objections to the R&R. By failing to timely object, Petitioner has
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 conducting a de novo review, this court finds that
the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are fully supported by the record and controlling case law.

Accordingly, this court adopts Judge Limbert’s R&R (ECF No. 41) in its entirety and hereby
dismisses Jackson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Pet., ECF No. 1). The court also 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 JUDGE

September 28, 2018

-2-