Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wellington v. Bunting

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio

November 22, 2017

DANIEL WELLINGTON, Petitioner,
v.
JASON BUNTING, Warden, Respondent

          ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          DONALD C. NUGENT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz. The Report and Recommendation (ECF #13), issued on October 10, 2017, is hereby ADOPTED by this Court, without objection.

         On January 15, 2016, Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2013 conviction for involuntary manslaughter in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas. (ECF #1). Petitioner raised a single ground for relief:

         Trial court erred in sentencing Petitioner to maximum sentencing without supporting it on Record violating Due Process and Equal Protection.

         (ECF#1, § 12).

         Respondent failed a Return of Writ (ECF #9) and Petitioner filed a Traverse (ECF #11).

         Magistrate Judge Ruiz found that Petitioner's sole ground for relief was procedurally defaulted because Petitioner did not exhaust his claim in state court. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Ruiz recommends that this petition be DENIED. Petitioner has not filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. This Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendations for the reasons set forth below.

         I. Discussion

         The applicable district court standard of review for a magistrate judge's report and recommendation depends upon whether objections were made to the report. Petitioner failed to timely file objections to the Report and Recommendation, therefore, this court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the fact of the record in order to accept the recommendation." See Miller v. Schweitzer, 2017 WL 4574584 (N.D.Ohio Oct. 13, 2017), *2 (citation omitted).

         This standard of review is distinct from the standard of review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), which provides:

(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim -
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law...
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.