Schindler v. Wilson, No. 1:2007cv02057 - Document 14 (N.D. Ohio 2008)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation. Respondent's motion to dismiss (doc#7) is granted and the Petition is dismissed. The Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith and there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. Judge Jack Zouhary on 6/30/08. (B,CJ)

Download PDF
Schindler v. Wilson Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION James J. Schindler, Case No. 1:07 CV 2057 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER -vsJUDGE JACK ZOUHARY Julius Wilson, Respondent. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed June 10, 2008. Under the relevant statute (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (1982)): Within ten days after being served with a copy, 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. In this case, the ten-day period has elapsed and no objections have been filed. The failure to file written objections constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (2005). The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 13) in its entirety. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7) is granted and the Petition (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed. Dockets.Justia.com For the reasons set forth above, 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 on which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Federal Appellate Rule 22(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jack Zouhary JACK ZOUHARY U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE June 30, 2008 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.