Love v. Sloan, No. 3:2018cv02640 - Document 10 (N.D. Ohio 2019)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 9 , is hereby adopted. Mendo Love's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus will be dismissed. The Court certi fies, 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 8/7/2019. (JLG)

Download PDF
Love v. Sloan Doc. 10 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION MENDO LOVE (#A681444), Petitioner, v. DOUGLAS FENDER,1 Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 3:18CV2640 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Pro Se Petitioner Mendo Love filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1) alleging six (6) grounds for relief which challenge the constitutional sufficiency of his convictions and sentence in Erie County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2011 CR 0310. Petitioner was sentenced to 30 months on each of three counts, a six-month license suspension, and a mandatory fine of $5,000 on each count. The sentences imposed in Counts 4 and 6 were to be served concurrently, but the sentence in Count 2 was ordered to be served consecutive to the other counts. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. 1 Brigham Sloan was the original respondent. He was sued in an official capacity as a public officer. According to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction website (https://drc.ohio.gov/laeci (last visited August 7, 2019)), Douglas Fender is now the Warden at Lake Erie Correctional Institution. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Fender’s name has been automatically substituted as a party. Dockets.Justia.com (3:18CV2640) Burke for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). On June 25, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a Report & Recommendation (ECF No. 9). In her Report, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court deny the habeas petition because: (1) Grounds One, Two, and Six fail on the merits (ECF No. 9 at PageID #: 522-27; PageID #: 530-32); (2) Grounds Three and Five are not cognizable (ECF No. 9 at PageID #: 527; PageID #: 530); and, (3) Ground Four is not cognizable and fails on the merits (ECF No. 9 at PageID #: 527-30). 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 Report were, therefore, due on July 12, 2019.2 Neither party has timely filed objections. Therefore, the Court must assume that the parties are satisfied with the magistrate judge’s recommendations. Any further review by this 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. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the Report & Recommendation of the magistrate judge is hereby adopted. Mendo Love’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus will be dismissed. 2 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), three days must be added to the fourteen-day time period because Petitioner was served a copy of the Report by mail. See Thompson v. Chandler, 36 Fed.Appx. 783, 784 (6th Cir. 2002). 2 (3:18CV2640) 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. August 7, 2019 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge 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.