Mylesv.Money

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern DivisionNov 13, 2006
Case No. 3:04 CV 7095 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 13, 2006)

Case No. 3:04 CV 7095.

November 13, 2006


Memorandum of Opinion and Order


PATRICIA GAUGHAN, District Judge

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baughman (Doc. 16) 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, Ronald Requez Myles, 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 Magistrate Judge found the two grounds for relief asserted in the Petition to be procedurally defaulted in that they were first raised in petitioner's untimely Rule 26(B) application to re-open his appeal. The state appellate court relied on the untimeliness to deny the application. That court alternatively found no merit to the claims. As recognized by the Magistrate Judge, the four-part Maupin test for finding a procedural default has been met. Further, petitioner fails to establish cause for the procedural default. This 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. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed.

Furthermore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) provides:

(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from —
(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or
(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.
(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

(emphasis added).

In Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), the Supreme Court determined that

[t]o obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were `adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'
Id. at 483-4 (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n. 4 (1983)).

If the claim is not procedurally defaulted, then a habeas court need only determine whether reasonable jurists would find the district court's decision "debatable or wrong." Id. at 484. In instances where a claim is procedurally defaulted, a COA should only issue if "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Id. (emphasis supplied).

For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court does not find that petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Nor would jurists of reason find the correctness of the procedural ruling debatable. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.