Clement v. Kelly

Full title: REGINALD CLEMENT, Petitioner, v. BENNIE KELLY, Warden, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Date published: Nov 14, 2013

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-00389 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 14, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-00389

11-14-2013

REGINALD CLEMENT, Petitioner, v. BENNIE KELLY, Warden, Respondent.

JAMES S. GWIN

OPINION & ORDER

[Resolving Doc. No. 1]

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On September 24, 2013, Magistrate Judge Vecchiarelli recommended the Court dismiss Petitioner Clement's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.¹ On October 4, 2013, Petitioner moved to extend the time within which to file objections to the Report and Recommendation.² On October 8, 2013, the Court granted the motion for additional time and ordered Petitioner to object to the Report and Recommendation by November 8, 2013.³ Petitioner Clement did not file an objection. The Court now ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Vecchiarelli's well-reasoned Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the petition.

1 Doc. 10.

2 Doc. 11.

3 Doc. 12.

The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which the parties have made objected.⁴ Failure to object within the time authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or other court order waives a party's right to appeal the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.⁵ If neither party objects to the Report and Recommendation, a district court may adopt it without review.⁶ However, this Court has conducted its own review of the petition and traverse⁷ and agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.

4 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

5 See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-55 (1985) ; United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).

6 Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149.

7 See Docs. 1, 9.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS in whole Magistrate Judge Vecchiarelli's Report and Recommendation. The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Clement's § 2254 petition. Moreover, 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, and no basis exists upon which to issue a certificate of appealability.⁸

8 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) ; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
--------

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

JAMES S. GWIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE