Taylor v. Bradshaw

Full title: Michael Taylor, Petitioner, v. Margaret Bradshaw, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Apr 12, 2011

CASE NO. 1:09 CV 1829 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:09 CV 1829.

April 12, 2011

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

PATRICIA GAUGHAN, District Judge

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Limbert (Doc. 20) which recommends dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pending before the Court. For the following reasons, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED.

Introduction

Petitioner, Michael Taylor, commenced this action with the filing of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation recommending that the Petition be dismissed. Petitioner has failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation.

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.

Conclusion

The Court fully agrees with the reasoning and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge and, having found no clear error, completely adopts his factual and legal conclusions as its own and incorporates them herein by reference. As the Magistrate Judge provided alternate analyses for dismissing Grounds Six and Seven, the Court finds that Grounds Six and Seven are procedurally defaulted for the reasons set forth by Magistrate Judge Limbert. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed.

For the reasons stated above and in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds, 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.