Hernandez v. Eberlin, No. 5:2007cv00399 - Document 27 (N.D. Ohio 2008)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order adopting Magistrate Judge George Limbert's Report and Recommendation (re 25 ). Judge Peter C. Economus on 7/24/08. (BR,S) Modified typo on 7/28/2008 (S,L).

Download PDF
Hernandez v. Eberlin Doc. 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION CLEMENTE HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. MICHELLE EBERLIN, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:07CV399 JUDGE PETER C. ECONOMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Clemente Hernandez (“Petitioner”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in the Southern District of Ohio. (Dkt. # 2). The matter was transferred to this Court on February 7, 2007. (Dkt. # 6). On May 3, 2007, this case was automatically referred to Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert for preparation of a Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and LR 72.1. (Dkt. # 10). On June 13, 2008, the Magistrate issued a report and recommendation, recommending that the Court deny the instant petition because Petitioner’s claims are time barred and Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. (Dkt. # 25). Petitioner has timely filed objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. # 26). Specifically, Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling based upon the cumulative Dockets.Justia.com effects of his inability to speak or write English. The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s objections and finds they are without merit. The Court has reviewed the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge de novo, and finds that it is well-supported. Therefore, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Limbert (Dkt. # 25) is hereby ADOPTED, and Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Peter C. Economus – July 24, 2008 PETER C. ECONOMUS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.