From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Allen v. Hudson

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jun 10, 2009
CASE NO. 1:08CV1825 (N.D. Ohio Jun. 10, 2009)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:08CV1825.

June 10, 2009


ORDER


Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in the above-entitled action. 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). 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), aff'd, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh'g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); see United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation and accepts the same. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Allen v. Hudson

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jun 10, 2009
CASE NO. 1:08CV1825 (N.D. Ohio Jun. 10, 2009)
Case details for

Allen v. Hudson

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES ALLEN, PETITIONER, v. STUART HUDSON, Warden, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Jun 10, 2009

Citations

CASE NO. 1:08CV1825 (N.D. Ohio Jun. 10, 2009)

Citing Cases

Shahan v. Smith

Here, petitioner is unable to prevail on any claim that he lacked sufficient notice or "fair warning,"…

Shahan v. Smith

Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation of dismissal of his claim on the merits.…