Driggins v. Lazaroff, No. 1:2014cv00919 - Document 15 (N.D. Ohio 2015)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14 ). The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1 ) is dismissed in part and denied i n part. 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 10/27/2015. (JLG)

Download PDF
Driggins v. Lazaroff Doc. 15 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION RYAN DRIGGINS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN LAZAROFF, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:14cv919 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding ECF No. 14] Pro se Petitioner Ryan Driggins filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that asserted nineteen grounds for relief. ECF No. 1. Respondent Warden Alan Lazaroff1 filed a Return of Writ. ECF No. 10. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). On September 28, 2015, the magistrate judge submitted a report and recommendation (ECF No. 14) recommending that the petition be dismissed in part and denied in part because a portion of Ground Five is procedurally defaulted, a portion of Ground Nineteen is not cognizable, and the remainder of Petitioner’s grounds fail on the merits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service. Objections to the magistrate judge’s report were, therefore, 1 The caption also lists Respondent as “Warden Lazaroff,” but the correct spelling and appellation is “Alan Lazaroff, Warden.” ECF No. 10. Dockets.Justia.com (1:14cv919) due on October 15, 2015.2 Petitioner has not filed any objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Any further review by the Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is dismissed in part and denied in part. 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 27, 2015 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge 2 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), three days must be added to the fourteen-day time period because Petitioner was served the Magistrate Judge’s Report by mail. See Thompson v. Chandler, 36 F. App’x. 783, 784 (6th Cir. 2002). 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.