From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patton v. O'Donnell

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
Jul 13, 2009
Case No. 3:08 CV 967 (N.D. Ohio Jul. 13, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 3:08 CV 967.

July 13, 2009


MEMORANDUM OPINION


This action was transferred to the United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation on June 15, 2009. 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) (1982). In this case, the ten-day period has elapsed and no objections have been filed. The failure to file written objections to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984) affirmed, 474 U.S. 140 (1985);see United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

No objections have been filed and the Court has reviewed said Report and Recommendation, the findings and recommendations contained therein, and the record in this case. The findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge are well taken and there are no legal points which would be arguable on their merits in an appeal of this case. Furthermore, the Court has determined sua sponte that no certificate of probable cause should issue in this case as any appeal would lack substantial merit.

It is therefore,

ORDERED, that the Report and Recommendation be, and hereby is, adopted as the Order of this Court.

FURTHER ORDERED that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), an appeal of this case should not proceed in forma pauperis as it would not be taken in good faith.

FURTHER ORDERED that a motion for certificate of probable cause under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 is hereby denied sua sponte.


Summaries of

Patton v. O'Donnell

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
Jul 13, 2009
Case No. 3:08 CV 967 (N.D. Ohio Jul. 13, 2009)
Case details for

Patton v. O'Donnell

Case Details

Full title:REGINALD D. PATTON Petitioner, v. JOHN P. O'DONNELL, et al., Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 13, 2009

Citations

Case No. 3:08 CV 967 (N.D. Ohio Jul. 13, 2009)

Citing Cases

Main v. Lehman

No reasonable person would have anticipated that anyone observing and knowing the situation as plaintiff did,…

Spurlock v. Union Finance Co.

65 C.J.S., Negligence, sec. 51, p. 547; Cash v. Sonken-Galamba Co., 17 S.W.2d 927, 322 Mo. 349; Giles v.…