Clark v. State of Ohio, No. 4:2010cv01264 - Document 13 (N.D. Ohio 2012)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 11 . 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 10/2/2012. (S,L)

Download PDF
Clark v. State of Ohio Doc. 13 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION DAMON KEITH CLARK, JR., Petitioner, v. STATE OF OHIO, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:10cv1264 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding ECF No. 11] On April 30, 2012 Magistrate Judge George L. Limbert issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 11. 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). Failure to object within this time waives a party’s right to appeal the district court’s judgment. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Absent objection, a district court may adopt a magistrate judges report without review. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149. In the instant case, Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by May 14, 2012. Petitioner has not filed an Objection. The Court finds that the Report and Recommendation is supported by the record, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Dockets.Justia.com (4:10cv1264) Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 11. 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). IT IS SO ORDERED. October 2, 2012 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.