United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert. (ECF
#13). The Report and Recommendation, issued on October 22,
2019 is hereby ADOPTED by this Court.
Federal Habeas Corpus Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(ECF #1) is therefore DENIED.
September 20, 2017, Petitioner Dustin Hayes filed a petition
for a writ of federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2254 in its entirety. (ECF #1). The Respondent, Warden,
Belmont Correctional Institution, filed a return of writ on
January 18, 2018. (ECF #7). Petitioner filed a traverse to
Respondent's return of writ on March 28, 2018. (ECF
#9).Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert recommended the Court
deny Mr. Hayes' federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 on October 22, 2019. (ECF #13). Neither party
filed objections to the report and recommendation.
his petition, Mr. Hayes raises three arguments: (1) the
sentence is contrary to law [O.R.C] 2907.02 Rape in violation
of the U.S. Constitutional Amendment Five, Fourteen-Due
Process of law, and Eight-cruel and unusual punishment; (2)
trial court erred in failing to inform Petitioner of the
consequences of his plea, therefore the Petitioner did not
enter into his plea knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily; and (3) Petitioner's plea was not made
knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. (Id.).
Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge George J.
Limbert, evaluated the three arguments and determined that,
regarding the first argument, the Petitioner did not meet the
total exhaustion requirement and the claim was not cognizable
on federal habeas corpus review. (Id.). Next, the
Magistrate Judge found that the Petitioner's other two
claims were without merit, after a careful analysis of the
plea hearing transcripts showed that the trial judge, the
prosecutor and defense counsel discussed that the Petitioner
would face a life sentence. (Id.).
of Review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and
applicable standard of review of a magistrate judge's
report and recommendation depends upon whether objections
were made to that report. When objections are made to a
report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district
court reviews the case de novo. Fed. R.
The district judge must determine de novo any part
of the magistrate judge's dispositions that has been
properly objected to. The district judge may accept, or
modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence;
or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
"when no timely objection is filed, the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of
the record in order to accept the recommendation."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's notes (citations
U.S. Supreme Court stated: "It does not appear that
Congress intended to require district court review of
magistrate judge's factual or legal conclusions, under a
de novo or any other standard, when neither party
objects to these findings." Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Here, neither party objected to the
magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.