From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crosby v. Tibbals

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Sep 19, 2012
CASE NO. 1:11cv1557 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 19, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:11cv1557

09-19-2012

CHARLES R. CROSBY, Petitioner, v. TERRY A. TIBBALS, Respondent.


PEARSON, J.

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON


MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND

ORDER [Regarding ECF No. 19]

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Vernelis K. Armstrong (ECF No. 19) recommending the Court deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1).

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 fourteen days of service. Id. ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 Report and Recommendation were due by July 23, 2012. On July 23, Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file an Objection. ECF No. 20. This motion was granted on July 30, and Petitioner was given an additional 30 days to file Objections to the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner has not filed an Objection. The Court finds that the Report and Recommendation is supported by the record, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.

Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 19. 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, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

Benita Y. Pearson

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Crosby v. Tibbals

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Sep 19, 2012
CASE NO. 1:11cv1557 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 19, 2012)
Case details for

Crosby v. Tibbals

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES R. CROSBY, Petitioner, v. TERRY A. TIBBALS, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 19, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. 1:11cv1557 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 19, 2012)