Opinion
3:23-CV-1852
08-05-2024
LUKE RYAN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN JAY FORSHEY, Respondent.
CARMEN E. HENDERSON MAGISTRATE JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARLES E. FLEMING UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On September 25, 2023, Petitioner Luke Ryan (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 4). On June 3, 2024, Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Henderson submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court deny the Petition in its entirety because all the claims were procedurally defaulted or non-cognizable. (ECF No. 15).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that the parties may object to an R&R within fourteen (14) days after service. The R&R gave the parties notice of the 14-day time limit for filing objections. (ECF No. 15). As of the date of this decision, neither party filed any objections.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which the parties objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). Absent objection, a district court may adopt an R&R without further review. See Peretz v. US, 501 U.S. 923, 939 (1991); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 141-42, 149-50 (1985).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Henderson's Report and Recommendation, incorporates it fully herein by reference, and DENIES the Petition. The Court also finds that there is no basis upon which to issue, and will not issue, a certificate of appealability. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.