From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Hudson

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Apr 30, 2009
CASE NO. 4:08CV149 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 30, 2009)

Opinion

CASE NO. 4:08CV149.

April 30, 2009


ORDER


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

[. . .] Within ten 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 ten-day period has elapsed and no objections have been filed nor has any extension of time been sought. 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 ACCEPTS the same. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

Accordingly, Johnson's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Johnson v. Hudson

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Apr 30, 2009
CASE NO. 4:08CV149 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 30, 2009)
Case details for

Johnson v. Hudson

Case Details

Full title:ROMMIE L. JOHNSON, JR., PETITIONER, v. STUART HUDSON, Warden, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Apr 30, 2009

Citations

CASE NO. 4:08CV149 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 30, 2009)

Citing Cases

Matthews v. Jones

Id. As I noted in identical circumstances in Johnson v. Hudson, No. 4:08CV149, 2009 WL 1203400, at *7 (N.D.…