From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ford v. Hill

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jun 11, 2024
5:21-cv-01618 (N.D. Ohio Jun. 11, 2024)

Opinion

5:21-cv-01618

06-11-2024

DAEMON N. FORD, PETITIONER, v. WARDEN LEON HILL, RESPONDENT.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

SARA LIOI CHIEF JUDGE

Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in the above-entitled action. Under the relevant statute:

[. . .] Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In this case, the fourteen-day period, which was extended by three days pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d), has elapsed and no objections have been filed. The failure to file written objections to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation constitutes a waiver of a de novo 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 United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation and adopts the same. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Ford v. Hill

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jun 11, 2024
5:21-cv-01618 (N.D. Ohio Jun. 11, 2024)
Case details for

Ford v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:DAEMON N. FORD, PETITIONER, v. WARDEN LEON HILL, RESPONDENT.

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Jun 11, 2024

Citations

5:21-cv-01618 (N.D. Ohio Jun. 11, 2024)