Turski, Jr. v. Turner, No. 3:2020cv02380 - Document 9 (N.D. Ohio 2023)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 8 . Additionally, 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 Benita Y. Pearson on 8/10/2023. (JLG)

Download PDF
Turski, Jr. v. Turner Doc. 9 Case: 3:20-cv-02380-BYP Doc #: 9 Filed: 08/10/23 1 of 2. PageID #: 1149 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL J. TURSKI, JR., Petitioner, v. WARDEN NEIL TURNER, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 3:20CV2380 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding ECF No. 8] On August 8, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting that Petitioner Turski Jr.’s five claims in his Petition for habeas relief be dismissed because they are nonrecognizable and/or meritless, and that Turski’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. See ECF No. 8. The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which the parties have made an objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Parties must file any objections to a Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of service. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Absent objections, a district court may adopt a magistrate judge’s report without review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by August 24, 2022. None of the parties have filed an objection. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 8. Additionally, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from Dockets.Justia.com Case: 3:20-cv-02380-BYP Doc #: 9 Filed: 08/10/23 2 of 2. PageID #: 1150 (3:20CV2380) 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). IT IS SO ORDERED. August 10, 2023 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge 2

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.