Dye v. LaRose

Filing 15

Memorandum Opinion: The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation and adopts the same. (Doc. No. 12 .) Accordingly, the Court dismisses the petition for habeas corpus relief. Further, the Court certifies, pursua nt to 28 U.S.C. Section 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. Section 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). (Related Doc. No. 4 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 3/23/2017. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT A. DYE,
PETITIONER,
vs.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden,
RESPONDENT.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:15CV1095
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in the
above-entitled action. 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). In this case, the fourteen-day period has elapsed and no objections have
been filed. 1 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 (6th Cir. 1984), aff=d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge=s report and recommendation and adopts the
same. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the petition for habeas corpus relief. Further, the Court
certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in

1 The docket reflects that, on February 24, 2017, petitioner came to the Akron Clerk’s Office and filed a notice that his
address had changed, and that an employee of the Clerk’s Office gave petitioner a copy of the R&R at that time. (Doc.
No. 13; and Staff Note dated 2/24/2017 (restricted access).) Assuming that petitioner had not seen the R&R prior to
being presented with a copy on February 24, 2017, his objections were due no later than March 14, 2017.

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.
Dated: March 23, 2017
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2