Guyton v. Sloan

Filing 11

Memorandum Opinion and Order: This Court, having reviewed the 10 Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error, accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Court hereby dismisses in part and denies in part the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and denies Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation, which is incorporated herein by reference. 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). Signed by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 12/22/2020. (S,SR)

Case: 1:18-cv-00964-PAB Doc #: 11 Filed: 12/22/20 1 of 2. PageID #: 679

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EDWIN M. GUYTON,

CASE NO. 1:18-CV-00964
Petitioner,

JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER

-vsMAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR.
WARDEN BRIGHAM SLOAN,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
William H. Baughman, Jr. (Doc. No. 10), issued on November 16, 2020, which recommends that the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pending before the Court be dismissed in part and denied in part
and that Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing be denied. No objections have been filed. For
the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district
court reviews the case de novo. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) provides in pertinent part:
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions.
As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court
need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” In Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the Court held, “[i]t does not appear

Case: 1:18-cv-00964-PAB Doc #: 11 Filed: 12/22/20 2 of 2. PageID #: 680

that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions,
under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”
DECISION
This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error,
accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court hereby dismisses in part and
denies in part the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and denies Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary
hearing for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation, which is
incorporated herein by reference.

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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Pamela A. Barker
PAMELA A. BARKER
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: December 22, 2020

2