From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Coleman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Sep 10, 2015
Case No. 3:15 CV 696 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 10, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 3:15 CV 696

09-10-2015

Henry O. Johnson, Jr., Petitioner, v. John Coleman, Respondent.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Magistrate Judge filed August 20, 2015 (Doc. 5). The R&R recommends this Court deny Respondent's Motion to Consolidate and grant Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a party must serve written objections to the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen (14) days of being served with the R&R, at which time this Court makes a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which objections were made. The failure to file objections within the time frame set forth in the statute constitutes a waiver of de novo review by the district court. See United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

Petitioner's deadline for filing objections has passed, and no requests for extension have been received. The R&R accurately states the facts and law, which this Court adopts in its entirety. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion to Consolidate is denied as moot and Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is granted (Doc. 4).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jack Zouhary

JACK ZOUHARY

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

September 10, 2015


Summaries of

Johnson v. Coleman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Sep 10, 2015
Case No. 3:15 CV 696 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 10, 2015)
Case details for

Johnson v. Coleman

Case Details

Full title:Henry O. Johnson, Jr., Petitioner, v. John Coleman, Respondent.

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

Date published: Sep 10, 2015

Citations

Case No. 3:15 CV 696 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 10, 2015)

Citing Cases

Jones v. Fender

“‘Notice' pleading is insufficient in the habeas context, as the petitioner is expected to state facts that…