From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lane v. Coleman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Mar 4, 2014
CASE NO. 3:11 CV 1178 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2014)

Opinion

CASE NO. 3:11 CV 1178

03-04-2014

Earnest Lane, Petitioner, v. John Coleman, Warden, Respondent.


JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN


Memorandum of Opinion and Order

Introduction

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Greg White (Doc. 11) which recommends denial of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pending before the Court. Petitioner did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation. For the following reasons, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED.

Standard of Review

Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts provides, "The judge must determine de novo any proposed finding or recommendation to which objection is made. The judge may accept, reject, or modify any proposed finding or recommendation."When no objections have been filed this Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. See Advisory Committee Notes 1983 Addition to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.

Discussion

Petitioner was sentenced in the Allen County Court of Common Pleas in October 2001 following a guilty plea to complicity to aggravated arson, complicity to aggravated robbery, and complicity to involuntary manslaughter. The Magistrate Judge found grounds one and five to be procedurally defaulted, and grounds two, three, and four to be without merit. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and has found no clear error. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, which is incorporated herein, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. Furthermore, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, 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.

__________________________

PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Lane v. Coleman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Mar 4, 2014
CASE NO. 3:11 CV 1178 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2014)
Case details for

Lane v. Coleman

Case Details

Full title:Earnest Lane, Petitioner, v. John Coleman, Warden, Respondent.

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

Date published: Mar 4, 2014

Citations

CASE NO. 3:11 CV 1178 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2014)

Citing Cases

Turner's Adm'r v. Dillard's Ex'r

Passing by, for the present, the question arising upon the demurrer, we will consider, first, the defence of…

Smallpiece v. Johnson

Powell, Actions for Land, (Rev. ed.) 485, § 402. In this connection, see Coleman v. Lane, 26 Ga. 515, 519;…