Opinion
1:18-cv-02798
04-05-2022
DAVID D. ERCOLI, JR., Petitioner, v. WARDEN LYNEAL WAINWRIGHT Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
[RESOLVING DOC. 1]
JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On December 4, 2018, David Ercoli filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 9, 2022, Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman recommended that the Court deny the petition. Magistrate Judge Baughman concluded that Petitioner conceded Grounds Seven and Grounds Ten through Eighteen in his traverse. Magistrate Judge Baughman recommended dismissing Grounds Two and Nine as non-cognizable. In addition, Magistrate Judge Baughman recommended dismissing Grounds Three through Six and Ground Eight as procedurally defaulted. Finally, Magistrate Judge Baughman recommended denying Ground One on the merits.
Doc. 1. Respondent opposed. Doc. 11. Petitioner replied. Doc. 14.
Doc. 15.
Id. at 2.
Id. at 2-3.
Id.
Magistrate Judge Baughman ordered the parties to file objections, if any, within fourteen days. Neither party objected, and the time to do so has expired.
Id. at 23.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a district court must conduct a de novo review of the objected-to portions of a Report and Recommendation. Absent objection, a district court may adopt the Report and Recommendation without review.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); L.R. 72.3(b).
Here, no party has objected to the Report and Recommendation, so this Court may adopt the Report and Recommendation without further review. Moreover, having conducted its own review of the petition and the record, the Court agrees that the petition must be denied.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DENIES Petitioner's request for a writ of habeas corpus. Furthermore, no basis exists upon which to issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.