Doyle v. McConahay

Filing 12

Memorandum of Opinion and Order. The Court hereby denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 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). Judge Pamela A. Barker on 5/9/2024. Related documents 1 , 10 . (M,CE)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CARDELL DOYLE,

Case No. 1:21-cv-01838-PAB
Petitioner,
JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER

-vsWARDEN TIM MCCONAHAY,

Magistrate
Armstrong

Judge

Jennifer

Dowdell

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong (Doc. No. 10), which recommends denial of the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pending before the Court. No objections have been filed.1 For the following reasons,
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.

1

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation was filed on April 3, 2024. (Doc. No. 10.) On April 24, 2024,
Petitioner filed an “Allocution Statement,” in which Petitioner makes several contentions. (Doc. No. 11.) None of
Petitioner’s contentions in his Allocution Statement pertain to or discuss the reasoning or conclusions in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, errors in sentencing, or anything else relevant to his conviction. (Doc. No. 11.)
Petitioner’s Allocution Statement, therefore, does not constitute a proper “objection” to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation. Hill v. Black, 2023 WL 1430468, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 1, 2023) (reviewing report and
recommendation for plain error despite petitioner’s objection because objection was “not responsive” to the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and therefore did “not constitute a proper objection entitled to de novo review”).

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
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 denies the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus 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: May 9, 2024

2