Hayes v. Bunting
Filing
11
Memorandum of Opinion and Order: For the reasons set forth herein and for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which is incorporated herein, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. Furtherm ore, 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 Patricia A. Gaughan on 8/1/16. (LC,S) re 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
James A. Hayes, III
Petitioner,
vs.
Jason Bunting, Warden
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 3:15 CV 153
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
Memorandum of Opinion and Order
Introduction
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge James Knepp, II (Doc. 10) which recommends denial of the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pending before the Court. Petitioner did not file objections to the recommendation.
For the following reasons, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED.
Standard of Review
Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts provides, “The judge must determine de novo any proposed finding or
recommendation to which objection is made. The judge may accept, reject, or modify any
1
proposed finding or recommendation.” When no objections have been filed this Court need
only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation. See Advisory Committee Notes 1983 Addition to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72.
Discussion
Petitioner is incarcerated after a Seneca County, Ohio jury found him guilty of two
counts of felonious assault. Petitioner sets forth three grounds for habeas relief. Ground One
asserts ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Ground Two asserts that the trial court’s
imposition of restitution was erroneous. Ground Three asserts that the convictions were
against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The Magistrate Judge found Grounds Two and Three to be non-cognizable on habeas
review. Ground Two constitutes a noncustodial punishment and Ground Three is an issue of
state law. The Magistrate Judge determined that a portion of Ground One was procedurally
defaulted and he rejected the remaining portion as failing on the merits.
Having no objections, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and
found no clear error. Accordingly, it accepts the recommendation.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein and for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, which is incorporated herein, the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus is denied. 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).
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge
Dated: 8/1/16
3
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?