Priest v. Hudson, No. 1:2008cv02028 - Document 15 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommended Decision. Ground Two of the Petition is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 11/25/2009. (Related doc 12 )(B,B)

Download PDF
Priest v. Hudson Doc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION MYRON PRIEST, Petitioner, vs. STUART HUDSON, WARDEN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:08 CV 2028 Judge Dan Aaron Polster MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommended Decision of Magistrate Judge George Limbert, issued on October 7, 2009 (“R & R”) (ECF No. 12). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Ground Two of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Habeas Petition”) filed by Petitioner Myron Priest.1 Under the relevant statute: 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (1988) (emphasis added). On October 19, 2009, Petitioner moved for 1 On September 15, 2009, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Interim Report and Recommended Decision that Grounds One, Three and Four of the habeas petition be denied. ECF No. 10. Dockets.Justia.com an extension to file objections to the R & R. ECF No. 13. On October 20, 2009 the Court, at its discretion, granted Petitioner until November 23, 2009, to file objections. ECF No. 14. It is now November 25, 2009, and Petitioner has still not filed an objection to the R & R nor requested another extension of time to file an objection. The failure to timely file written objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s comprehensive, well-written R&R and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 12). Ground Two of the Petition is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Dan Aaron Polster November 25, 2009 Dan Aaron Polster 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.