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.

Hayes v. Gray

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

November 19, 2019

Dustin Hayes Petitioner,
v.
DAVID W. GRAY, Warden, Belmont Correctional Institution, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          DONALD C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This 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.

         Petitioner's Federal Habeas Corpus Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF #1) is therefore DENIED.

         Procedural History

         On 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.

         In the 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.).

         In the 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.).

         Standard of Review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations

         The 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.

         Civ. P. 72(b) states:

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 instructions.

         However, "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 omitted).

         The 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. Accordingly, ...


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.