Turner v. Gray, No. 1:2019cv01731 - Document 11 (N.D. Ohio 2020)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order Adopting 10 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court GRANTS Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8 ); and DISMISS with prejudice Petitioner's Petition (Doc. 1 ) as time-bar red. The Court finds an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Since Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right directly related to his conviction or custody, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); FED. R. APP. P. 22(b); Rule 11 of Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 8/17/2020. (D, I)

Download PDF
Turner v. Gray Doc. 11 Case: 1:19-cv-01731-CAB Doc #: 11 Filed: 08/17/20 1 of 2. PageID #: 279 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL TURNER, Petitioner, vs. DAVID W. GRAY, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:19CV1731 JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.: This matter is before on the court on Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr.’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) to grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss and to dismiss with prejudice Petitioner Michael Turner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) as time-barred. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by July 27, 2020. Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after service. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). There is no indication that Petitioner did not receive the Report and Recommendation. And yet, Petitioner has failed to timely file any objection. Therefore, the Court must assume that Petitioner is satisfied with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Any further review by this Court would be duplicative and an inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Dockets.Justia.com Case: 1:19-cv-01731-CAB Doc #: 11 Filed: 08/17/20 2 of 2. PageID #: 280 Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 10); GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8); and DISMISS with prejudice Petitioner’s Petition (Doc. 1) as time-barred. The Court finds an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Since Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right directly related to his conviction or custody, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); FED. R. APP. P. 22(b); Rule 11 of Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Christopher A. Boyko CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO United States District Judge Dated: August 17, 2020 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.