Summary
finding petitioner “not entitled to the ninety additional days to appeal to the United States Supreme Court,” because his “motion for delayed appeal [was] not part of direct review”
Summary of this case from Flores v. TurnerOpinion
Case No. 3:12-cv-02300
01-14-2014
Keith Parsons, Plaintiff v. Neil Turner, Defendant
ORDER
Pending before me is the November 19, 2013 Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Greg White in the above-captioned action. Under the relevant statute:
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of these proposed Findings and Recommendations, any party who wishes to object must file and serve written objections or further appeal is waived.United States v. Campbell, 261 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In this case, the fourteen-day period has elapsed and no objections have been filed.
The failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation constitutes a waiver of a determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Following a review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and in the absence of any objections, I adopt the November 19, 2013 Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Furthermore, I have determined sua sponte that a certificate of appealability shall not issue in this case as an appeal of this decision is not taken in good faith and no grounds exist upon which to grant such relief.
Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed with prejudice. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), an appeal of this decision could not be taken in good faith, therefore, there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
So Ordered.
Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge