Hayes v. Bunting, No. 3:2015cv00153 - Document 11 (N.D. Ohio 2016)
Court Description: 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
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hayes v. Bunting Doc. 11 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
