Crouse v. Richland Correctional Institution, Warden, No. 1:2012cv00970 - Document 8 (N.D. Ohio 2013)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed. Furthermore, for the reasons stated herein and in the Report and Recommendation, 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 Patricia A. Gaughan on 10/23/13. (LC,S) re 7 .
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Crouse v. Richland Correctional Institution, Warden Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Kevin Crouse, Petitioner, vs. Maggie Bradshaw, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:12 CV 970 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN Memorandum of Opinion and Order Introduction This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George Limbert (Doc. 7) which recommends dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pending before the Court. Petitioner did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation. For the following reasons, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. Standard of Review Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts provides, “The judge must determine de novo any proposed finding or 1 Dockets.Justia.com recommendation to which objection is made. The judge may accept, reject, or modify any proposed finding or recommendation.”When no objections have been filed this Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. See Advisory Committee Notes 1983 Addition to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. Discussion Petitioner is incarcerated after being sentenced in the Richland County Common Pleas Court following a plea of no contest to charges of domestic violence and intimidation. The Magistrate Judge found petitioner’s sole habeas ground for relief to be procedurally defaulted as he failed to present this issue on appeal to the state courts and he conceded as much. Nor did petitioner present sufficient cause to excuse his procedural default. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge concluded that even if the Court were to reach the merits of the claim, it fails. This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and, finding no clear error, accepts it for the reasons stated therein. For the reasons stated above, and those stated in the Report and Recommendation which is incorporated herein, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed. Conclusion Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed. Furthermore, for the reasons stated herein and in the Report and Recommendation, 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). 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN United States District Judge Dated: 10/23/13 3
]]>
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.
