From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parsons v. Turner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Jan 14, 2014
Case No. 3:12-cv-02300 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2014)

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. Turner

Opinion

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


Summaries of

Parsons v. Turner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Jan 14, 2014
Case No. 3:12-cv-02300 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2014)

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. Turner
Case details for

Parsons v. Turner

Case Details

Full title:Keith Parsons, Plaintiff v. Neil Turner, Defendant

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Jan 14, 2014

Citations

Case No. 3:12-cv-02300 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2014)

Citing Cases

Prescott v. Chapman

In Lawrence v. Florida, the Supreme Court clearly held that the tolling provisions of § 2244(d)(2) for…

Miller v. Larose

As Magistrate Judge White thoroughly explained, statutory tolling does not apply to timely appeals of…