Opinion
20-CV-754
08-18-2022
DAVID ALLEN STODDARD, Petitioner, v. WARDEN LYNEAL WAINWRIGHT, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DAN AARON POLSTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker's Report and Recommendation (the “R & R”), ECF Doc. 16, which recommends that the Court deny Petitioner David Allen Stoddard's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, ECF Doc. 1, and dismiss the claims asserted therein. The R & R was filed on July 20, 2022, and a copy was mailed to Stoddard that day.
Under the relevant statute,
Within fourteen 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). The failure to timely file written objections to a Magistrate Judge's R & R constitutes a waiver of the right to obtain a de novo review of the R & R in the district court. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The failure to file written objections also results in a waiver of the right to appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813, 814-15 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Here, the time for objection has passed. It is now August 18, 2022, and no objections to the R & R have been filed.[*] Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the thorough R & R and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that each of Stoddard's claims are untimely, noncognizable, procedurally defaulted and/or meritless.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R & R (ECF Doc. 16) in full, Stoddard's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Petition (ECF Doc. 1) is DENIED in its entirety with prejudice. The Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certification of appealability. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(3), 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
[*] Because Stoddard file his petition pro se, the Court allowed him an extra fourteen days to file any objections to the R&R. Despite the extra time, no objections have been filed.