Reinbolt v. Turner, No. 3:2019cv01816 - Document 10 (N.D. Ohio 2020)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: For reasons set forth in this order, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker (Doc. No. 9 ), which recommends granting Respondents Motion to Dismiss Habeas Petition (Doc. No. 7 ) and dismissing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pending before the Court. No objections have been filed. The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. Entered by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 5/13/2020. (L,Ja)

Download PDF
Reinbolt v. Turner Doc. 10 Case: 3:19-cv-01816-PAB Doc #: 10 Filed: 05/13/20 1 of 2. PageID #: 106 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO MELVIN G. REINBOLT, CASE NO. 3:19-CV-01816 Petitioner, JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER -vsMAGISTRATE JUDGE THOMAS M. PARKER WARDEN NEIL TURNER, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker (Doc. No. 9), which recommends granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Habeas Petition (Doc. No. 7) and dismissing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pending before the Court. No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. STANDARD OF REVIEW When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court reviews the case de novo. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) provides in pertinent part: The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” In Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the Court held, “[i]t does not appear Dockets.Justia.com Case: 3:19-cv-01816-PAB Doc #: 10 Filed: 05/13/20 2 of 2. PageID #: 107 that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” DECISION This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error, accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court hereby grants Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Habeas Petition, dismisses Petitioner’s claims, and denies Petitioner’s Petition for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation, which is incorporated herein by reference. Furthermore, 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. s/Pamela A. Barker PAMELA A. BARKER U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE Date: May 13, 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.