Battiste v. Miller
Order Dismissing Petition. The R&R 11 accurately states the facts and law, and this Court adopts it in its entirety and dismisses the Petition 1 . Judge Jack Zouhary on 5/8/2017. (D,L)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Case No. 1:17 CV 128
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
JUDGE JACK ZOUHARY
Petitioner pro se Jayson Battiste, a prisoner in state custody, filed a Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Parker for
a Report and Recommendation (R&R) under Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). Petitioner then filed a Motion
to Stay, seeking to hold these proceedings in abeyance pending exhaustion of his state remedies
The Magistrate Judge filed an R&R on April 18, 2017, recommending that Petitioner’s Motion
to Stay be denied (Doc. 11). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a party must serve written objections to
the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days of being served
with the R&R, at which point this Court will make a de novo determination of those portions of the
R&R to which objections were made. The failure to file written objections constitutes a waiver of a
de novo review by the district court. United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Petitioner’s deadline for filing objections has passed, and no requests for extension have been
received. The R&R accurately states the facts and law, and this Court adopts it in its entirety.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 7) is denied. Further, because Petitioner has not yet
exhausted his available state court remedies, his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is
dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275 (2005); Rose v. Lundy, 455
U.S. 509, 522 (1982).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jack Zouhary
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
May 8, 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?