Montez v. Forshey, No. 3:2021cv00643 - Document 12 (N.D. Ohio 2023)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: The Court ADOPTS Judge Parker's 11 Report and Recommendation as the Order of this Court, and DENIES and DISMISSES Petitioner's 4 Petition as set forth therein. The Court finds an appeal from this de cision could not be taken in good faith. Further, because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right directly related to his conviction or custody, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Judge James R. Knepp II on 8/22/2023. Copy sent to Petitioner Jeno Diamond Montez, A745-983 NOBLE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 15708 McConnelsville Road, Caldwell, OH 43724 by regular U.S. Mail on 8/22/2023. (B,JL)

Download PDF
Montez v. Forshey Doc. 12 Case: 3:21-cv-00643-JRK Doc #: 12 Filed: 08/22/23 1 of 2. PageID #: 237 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION JENO DIAMOND MONTEZ, CASE NO. 3:21 CV 643 Petitioner, v. JUDGE JAMES R. KNEPP II JAY FORSHEY, WARDEN, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) to dismiss and deny Petitioner Jeno Diamond Montez’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 11). Specifically, Judge Parker recommends the Court find the Petition time-barred. See id. Under the relevant statute: Within fourteen days of being served with a copy [of a Magistrate Judge’s R&R], 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); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). The failure to file timely written objections to a Magistrate Judge’s R&R constitutes a waiver of de novo review by the district court of any issues covered in the R&R. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813, 814-15 (6th Cir. 1984); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). In this case, the R&R was issued on July 18, 2023, and it is now August 22, 2023. Petitioner has neither filed objections nor requested an extension of time to file them. Despite the lack of objections, the Court has reviewed Judge Parker’s R&R, and agrees with the findings and Dockets.Justia.com Case: 3:21-cv-00643-JRK Doc #: 12 Filed: 08/22/23 2 of 2. PageID #: 238 recommended rulings therein. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS Judge Parker’s R&R (Doc. 11) as the Order of this Court, and DENIES and DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition (Doc. 4) as set forth therein. The Court finds an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Further, because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right directly related to his conviction or custody, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); FED. R. APP. P. 22(b); Rule 11 of Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ James R. Knepp II 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.