Singfield v. Carter

Full title: WILLIAM SINGFIELD, III, Petitioner, v. HAROLD CARTER, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 15, 2002

No. 5:00 CV 1994 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 15, 2002)

Opinion

No. 5:00 CV 1994

January 15, 2002

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

POLSTER, United States District Judge

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James S. Gallas issued on September 25, 2001 (ECF. No. 13). For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

Petitioner William Singfield, III has filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking to overturn his January 13, 1995 state convictions which followed retrial for the indictment of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and having a weapon while under a disability. (ECF No. 1). On December 13, 2000, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the statute of limitations. (ECF No. 11). On September 25, 2001, Magistrate Judge James S. Gallas issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that Respondent's motion to dismiss be granted. (ECF No. 13). Petitioner filed no objections or response to the Report and Recommendation.

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) (1988) (emphasis added). The failure to timely file written objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of any 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). Here, more than three months have elapsed since the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was issued, and neither an objection nor a request for an extension to file objections has been filed.

The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-written Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) and hereby ADOPTS it. Accordingly, the underlying petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum of Opinion and Order filed contemporaneously with this Judgment Entry, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the above-captioned case is hereby terminated and dismissed as final.

Furthermore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c) and Fed.R.App.P. 22(b), there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.