Glenn v. Kelly, No. 4:2012cv01011 - Document 11 (N.D. Ohio 2013)
Court Description: Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 10/8/13 adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Related Docs. 1 , 10 ) (M,G)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Glenn v. Kelly Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: DEON GLENN, : : Petitioner, : : v. : : BENNIE KELLY, : : Respondent. : ------------------------------------------------------- CASE NO. 4:12-CV-1011 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. No. 1] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On April 24, 2012, Petitioner Glenn moved to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1/ Petitioner said that insufficient evidence existed to support his murder and attempted murder convictions.2/ The Court referred the petition to Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp II for a Report and Recommendation.3/ On September 12, 2013, Magistrate Judge Knepp issued a report recommending this Court deny the petition.4/ Petitioner Glenn has not filed an objection. The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate’s report and recommendation and DENIES Petitioner’s motion. The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which the parties have made an objection.5/ Parties must file any objections to a Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of service.6/ 1/ Doc. 1. 2/ Id. 3/ Doc. 3. 4/ Doc. 10. 5/ 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 6/ Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). -1- Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 4:12-CV-1011 Gwin, J. Failure to object within that time waives a party’s right to appeal the magistrate judge’s recommendation.7/ Absent objection, a district court may adopt the magistrate’s report without review.8/ Moreover, having conducted its own review of the petition,9/ this Court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS in whole Magistrate Judge Knepp’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and incorporates them fully herein by reference. The Court DENIES Petitioner’s § 2254 petition. Moreover, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and no basis exists upon which to issue a certificate of appealability.10/ IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: October 8, 2013 7/ Id.; see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 8/ Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149. 1981). 9/ Though Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file a traverse which the Court granted, Petitioner never filed a traverse. See Docs. 8; 9. 10/ 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
