Sandridge v. Potter

Filing 16

Memorandum Opinion: The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation and adopts the same. (Doc. No. 15 .) Accordingly, the petitioner for habeas corpus is denied, and this case is dismissed. Further, the Court cert ifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 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 Sara Lioi on 5/22/2017. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JEROME SANDRIDGE,

PETITIONER,
vs.
TIM BUCHANAN, Warden, NOBLE
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
RESPONDENT.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16cv2299

JUDGE SARA LIOI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in the
above-entitled action. Under the relevant statute:
[. . .] Within 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. A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.
28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C). In this case, the fourteen-day period has elapsed and no
objections have been filed. The failure to file written objections to a Magistrate Judge=s
report and recommendation constitutes a waiver of a de novo 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 United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge=s report and recommendation and
adopts the same. Accordingly, the petitioner for habeas corpus is denied, and this case is
dismissed. Further, 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2017
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE