Smith v. Harris

Full title: ADEMILSON J. SMITH, Petitioner, v. CHAE HARRIS, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Date published: Nov 12, 2019

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-1034 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 12, 2019)

Opinion

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-1034

11-12-2019

ADEMILSON J. SMITH, Petitioner, v. CHAE HARRIS, Respondent.

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving Doc. 1] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On March 20, 2017, Ademilson Smith filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.¹ On October 7, 2019, Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert recommended that the Court deny the petition.² Magistrate Judge Limbert concluded that Petitioner failed to exhaust Grounds One, Three, and Four and that Ground Two is not cognizable.³

1 Doc. 1. Respondent opposed. Doc. 9. Petitioner replied. Doc. 10.

2 Doc. 11.

3 Id.

Magistrate Judge Limbert ordered the parties to file objections, if any, within fourteen days.⁴ Neither party objected, and the time to do so has expired.

4 Id. at 25.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a district court must conduct a de novo review of the objected-to portions of a Report and Recommendation.⁵ Absent objection, a district court may adopt the Report and Recommendation without review.⁶

5 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

6 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); L.R. 72.3(b).

Here, no party has objected to the Report and Recommendation, so this Court may adopt the Report and Recommendation without further review. Moreover, having conducted its own review of the petition and the record, the Court agrees that the petition must be denied.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DENIES Petitioner's request for a writ of habeas corpus. Furthermore, no basis exists upon which to issue a certificate of appealability.⁷

7 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). --------

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 12, 2019

s/ James S . Gwin

JAMES S. GWIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE