Jones v. Hooks
Opinion and Order The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's thorough, well-written Report and Recommendation, agrees with the Magistrate Judge's findings, and adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommended rulings (Doc #: 14 ). Accordingly, the Court hereby dismissed with prejudice the Petitioner's § 2254 Petition (Doc #: 1 ). Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 9/22/2017. (K,K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
ANTWAINE L. JONES,
MARK HOOKS, Warden,
CASE NO. 3:16 CV 849
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Thomas M. Parker (“R&R”). (Doc #: 14.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court
dismiss the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State
Custody filed by Petitioner Antwaine L. Jones because his claims are procedurally defaulted, not
cognizable on federal habeas review, and/or lack merit (“§ 2254 Petition”). (Doc #: 1.)
Specifically, Petitioner has raised 11 Grounds for Relief in his § 2254 Petition. The
Magistrate Judge has found that Ground 1 is procedurally defaulted; he has recommended that
the Court dismiss Grounds 2, 3, 7 and 8 on the merits; he has found that Grounds 5, 6, 9 and 10
are not cognizable on federal habeas review; and he has concluded that Grounds 4 and 11 are not
cognizable on federal habeas review and/or lack merit. The Magistrate Judge has also
recommended that the Court deny a certificate of appealability.
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) (emphasis added). In this case, the R&R was issued on August 23, 2017,
and it is now September 22, 2017. Thirty days have elapsed since the R&R was issued, and
Petitioner has filed neither objections nor a request for an extension of time to file them.
The failure to timely file written objections to an R&R constitutes a waiver of a de novo
review by the district court of any issues covered in the R&R. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th
Cir. 1984); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Despite the lack of objections, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s thorough,
well-written R&R, agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings, and ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s recommended rulings (Doc #: 14). Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES WITH
PREJUDICE the § 2254 Petition (Doc #: 1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Dan A. Polster September 22, 2017
Dan Aaron Polster
United States District Judge
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?