From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sheppard v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Dec 9, 2014
NO. 1:08-cv-00298 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2014)

Opinion

NO. 1:08-cv-00298

12-09-2014

THOMAS SHEPPARD, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, LEBANON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.


ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the November 20, 2014 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (doc. 34), to which there has been no objection. Having reviewed this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), we find no clear error within it and, indeed, conclude that said Report and Recommendation is a thorough, well-reasoned and correct evaluation of the record. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the November 20, 2014 Report and Recommendation (doc. 34) in its entirety. Petitioner's pro se Motion for Relief from Judgment (doc. 32) is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for consideration under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

SO ORDERED. Dated: December 9, 2014

s/S. Arthur Spiegel

S. Arthur Spiegel

United States Senior District Judge

See Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings").


Summaries of

Sheppard v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Dec 9, 2014
NO. 1:08-cv-00298 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2014)
Case details for

Sheppard v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst.

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS SHEPPARD, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, LEBANON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Dec 9, 2014

Citations

NO. 1:08-cv-00298 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2014)