Opinion
3:20-cv-2519
07-24-2023
Cameron Rognon, Petitioner, v. Tom Watson, Warden,[1] Respondent.
ORDER
JEFFREY J. HELMICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before me is the March 13, 2023 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James E. Grimes, Jr., recommending I deny pro se Petitioner Cameron Rognon's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because Rognon's claims are procedurally defaulted or not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings. (Doc. No. 14).
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 (6th Cir. 1981). The deadline to file objections was March 27, 2023. The petitioner has not filed any objections and that deadline has passed.
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, 815 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also Walters, 638 F.2d at 950; Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers, Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (“[O]nly 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 accept Judge Grimes's recommendation and deny Rognon'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.