Jenkins v. Smith et al, No. 5:2010cv01151 - Document 30 (N.D. Ohio 2012)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order The Court adopts the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 29 ) and dismisses in part and denies in part Petitioner Jenkins' petition (ECF Nos. 1 ; 6 ). 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. Pro. 22(b). Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 12/27/2012. (S,L)

Download PDF
Jenkins v. Smith et al Doc. 30 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ZABE JOHN JENKINS, Petitioner, v. KEITH SMITH, et al., Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:10cv1151 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding ECF No. 29] On November 30, 2012, Magistrate Judge Baughman, Jr. issued a Report recommending pro se Petitioner Jenkins’ amended petition be dismissed in part and denied in part. ECF No. 29. 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. Pro. 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 were due by December 14, 2012. Petitioner has not filed an objection. The Court finds that the Report is supported by the record, and agrees with the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Dockets.Justia.com (5:10cv1151) Accordingly, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 29) and dismisses in part and denies in part Petitioner Jenkins’ petition (ECF Nos. 1; 6). 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. Pro. 22(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. December 27, 2012 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge

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.