Hamlin v. Eppinger

Filing 14

Order: The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13 ) be, and the same hereby is, adopted. The petition (Doc. 1 ) be, and hereby is, dismissed with prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not issue because jurists o f reason would not find it debatable whether I am correct in concluding that the petition for relief should be denied. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). An appeal from this order, moreover, would be frivolous, and shall not be taken without payment of the requisite filing fee. Judge James G. Carr on 8/15/18. (Attachments: # 1 Report and Recommendation)(C,D)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Michael Hamlin,

Case No. 5:17CV1443

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

Warden LaShaunn Eppinger,

Respondent.

Pro se petitioner Michael Hamlin has filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Respondent, LaShaunn Eppinger, Warden of Grafton Correctional
Institution, moves to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 10). Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II, has
entered a Report and Recommendation recommending I grant the motion. (Doc. 13).
The Magistrate Judge has given the parties proper notice under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C),
including notice that they would waive appeal if they fail to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).
As of the date of this order, petitioner has filed no objections, and has therefore waived his right
to further review.
I have, nonetheless, reviewed the petition and related filings. I find Magistrate Judge
Knepp’s Report and Recommendation well taken. I therefore adopt it and grant the motion.

1

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) be, and the same

hereby is, adopted; and
2.

The petition (Doc. 1) be, and hereby is, dismissed with prejudice.

A certificate of appealability will not issue because jurists of reason would not find it
debatable whether I am correct in concluding that the petition for relief should be denied. Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
An appeal from this order, moreover, would be frivolous, and shall not be taken without
payment of the requisite filing fee.
So ordered.
/s/ James G. Carr
Sr. U.S. District Judge

2