Ecker v. Harris ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Kevin Ecker, Case No. 5:19 CV 1126 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING -vs- REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Warden Chae Harris, JUDGE JACK ZOUHARY Defendant. Petitioner Kevin Ecker seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Henderson issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 11), concluding the Petition should be dismissed. Having reviewed the R&R and Objections de novo, this Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. See Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208 (6th Cir. 1981); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Ecker makes no objection to the procedural history set forth in the R&R (see Doc. 11). In short, Ecker was indicted in state court on seven drug offenses arising out of a search warrant executed in March 2015 (id. at 2–3). The search stemmed from an investigation into an overdose death for which Ecker was believed to be responsible (id. at 2). Four months later, a supplemental indictment charged Ecker with involuntary manslaughter and three additional drug charges (id.). In 2016, while Ecker was out on bail, a search of his apartment resulted in six new drug charges (id. at 3). Ecker was then found guilty at trial of fourteen charges, including involuntary manslaughter (Doc. 8-1 at 204–5). He was sentenced to twenty-one years in prison (id.). After unsuccessfully appealing his conviction in the Ohio courts, Ecker filed this Petition (id. at 4–6). The R&R thoroughly addresses Ecker’s four grounds for relief, outlining why each is defaulted, meritless, or noncognizable (id. at 10–21). Although this Court reviews de novo any portions of an R&R to which a party timely objects under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), failure to timely object waives district and appellate court review of the R&R. See Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981). The R&R notified Ecker that failure to object would result in waiver (Doc. 11 at 22). See Walters, 638 F.2d at 950. Ecker has not objected, and the deadline for objections has passed. This Court adopts the R&R (Doc. 11) in its entirety. The Petition (Doc. 1) is dismissed. Because Ecker has not made a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Further, an appeal from this Order could not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jack Zouhary JACK ZOUHARY U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE March 4, 2022 2