Ezell v. Harris

Filing 10

Memorandum Opinion and Order: The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Limbert's 9 Report and Recommendation and accepts and adopts the same. Accordingly, petitioner's 1 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C . § 2254 is DENIED in its entirety with prejudice, and this case is DISMISSED. The Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certification of appealability. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(3), 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Judge Sara Lioi on 6/5/2020. (E,CK)

Case: 3:17-cv-01337-SL Doc #: 10 Filed: 06/05/20 1 of 2. PageID #: 1090

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

DOMINIQUE EZELL,
PETITIONER,
vs.

WARDEN CHAE HARRIS,
RESPONDENT.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-1337
JUDGE SARA LIOI

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

Before the Court is the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge George J.
Limbert, recommending that Dominique Ezell’s (“petitioner”) petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied. (Doc. No. 9.)
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)(C).
The fourteen-day period has elapsed, and no objections have been filed nor has
any extension of time been sought. The failure to file written objections to a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by
the district court of an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813, 814–15
(6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Case: 3:17-cv-01337-SL Doc #: 10 Filed: 06/05/20 2 of 2. PageID #: 1091

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Limbert’s report and recommendation
and accepts and adopts the same. Accordingly, petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED in its entirety with prejudice, and this
case is DISMISSED. The Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be
taken in good faith and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certification of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(3), 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2020
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2