Turner v. Lazaroff, No. 5:2013cv01089 - Document 22 (N.D. Ohio 2014)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's R&R (ECF No. 21 ). Petitioner's petition (ECF No. 1 ) is denied in its entirety with prejudice. 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. Benita Y. Pearson on 11/26/2014. (JLG)

Download PDF
Turner v. Lazaroff Doc. 22 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JERMAINE TURNER, Petitioner, v. ALAN LAZAROFF, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:13cv1089 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding ECF No. 21] On October 31, 2014, Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) in its entirety with prejudice, including denying as moot Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 9) that the Court had previously held in abeyance (ECF No. 20). The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of a report and recommendation to which the parties have made an objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Parties must file any objections to a report and recommendation within 14 days of service. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(b)(2). Failure to object within this time waives a party’s right to appeal the district court’s judgment. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Absent objection, a district court may adopt a magistrate judge’s report without review. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149. In the instant case, objections to the R&R were due by November 17, 2014. Petitioner Dockets.Justia.com (5:13cv1089) has not filed an objection. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 21). Petitioner’s petition (ECF No. 1) is denied in its entirety with prejudice. 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. IT IS SO ORDERED. November 26, 2014 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge 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.