From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barton v. Wolfe

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
Aug 8, 2007
Case No. 3:06 CV 1855 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 8, 2007)

Opinion

Case No. 3:06 CV 1855.

August 8, 2007


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc No. 9) filed July 9, 2007. Under the relevant statute ( 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (1982)):

Within ten 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.

In this case, the ten-day period has elapsed and no objections have been filed. The failure to file written objections constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of issues covered in the report. United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (2005).

The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 9) in its entirety. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed.

Petitioner has failed to show the existence of any set of facts upon which he could prevail. Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court certifies that an appeal of this action could not be taken in good faith. Further, as Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, no certificate of appealability shall issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Barton v. Wolfe

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
Aug 8, 2007
Case No. 3:06 CV 1855 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 8, 2007)
Case details for

Barton v. Wolfe

Case Details

Full title:Larry D. Barton, Petitioner, v. Jeffrey Wolfe, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division

Date published: Aug 8, 2007

Citations

Case No. 3:06 CV 1855 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 8, 2007)