Patterson v. Sloan ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION William Patterson, Case No. 1:18-cv-501 Petitioner, v. ORDER Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Respondent. Before me is the November 8, 2019 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert, (Doc. No. 11), recommending I conclude that each of pro se Petitioner William Patterson’s four claims for relief are procedurally defaulted, and that I dismiss his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Under the relevant statute, “[w]ithin fourteen 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). The fourteen-day period has elapsed and no objections have been filed. The failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation constitutes a waiver of a determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also Walters, 638 F.2d at 950 (6th Cir. 1981); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (“only those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review”). Following my review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, I adopt the Report and Recommendation, (Doc. No. 11), in its entirety as the Order of the Court and dismiss Patterson’s petition. Further, I certify there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). So Ordered. s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge