Jones v. Hooks, No. 3:2016cv00849 - Document 15 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: Opinion and Order The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's thorough, well-written Report and Recommendation, agrees with the Magistrate Judge's findings, and adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommended rulings (Doc #: 14 ). Accordingly, the Court hereby dismissed with prejudice the Petitioner's § 2254 Petition (Doc #: 1 ). Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 9/22/2017. (K,K)
Download PDF
Jones v. Hooks Doc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ANTWAINE L. JONES, Petitioner, vs. MARK HOOKS, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 3:16 CV 849 JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER OPINION AND ORDER This case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker (“R&R”). (Doc #: 14.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by Petitioner Antwaine L. Jones because his claims are procedurally defaulted, not cognizable on federal habeas review, and/or lack merit (“§ 2254 Petition”). (Doc #: 1.) Specifically, Petitioner has raised 11 Grounds for Relief in his § 2254 Petition. The Magistrate Judge has found that Ground 1 is procedurally defaulted; he has recommended that the Court dismiss Grounds 2, 3, 7 and 8 on the merits; he has found that Grounds 5, 6, 9 and 10 are not cognizable on federal habeas review; and he has concluded that Grounds 4 and 11 are not cognizable on federal habeas review and/or lack merit. The Magistrate Judge has also recommended that the Court deny a certificate of appealability. Under the relevant statute: Within fourteen 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) (emphasis added). In this case, the R&R was issued on August 23, 2017, and it is now September 22, 2017. Thirty days have elapsed since the R&R was issued, and Petitioner has filed neither objections nor a request for an extension of time to file them. The failure to timely file written objections to an R&R constitutes a waiver of a de novo review by the district court of any issues covered in the R&R. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Despite the lack of objections, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s thorough, well-written R&R, agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings, and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommended rulings (Doc #: 14). Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the § 2254 Petition (Doc #: 1). IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Dan A. Polster September 22, 2017 Dan Aaron Polster United States District Judge -2-