United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
CHRIS H. GOTSHALL, Petitioner,
WARDEN CHARMAINE BRACY, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke. (ECF
#27). The Report and Recommendation, issued on October 29,
2019 is hereby ADOPTED by this Court. Petitioner's
Federal Habeas Corpus Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(ECF #1) is therefore DENIED.
9, 2018, pro se Petitioner Chris H. Gotshall filed a
Petition for a Writ of Federal Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 in its entirety. (ECF #1). On April 1, 2019,
Respondent, Warden, filed a Motion to Dismiss
Petitioner's claim. (ECF #17). Petitioner and Respondent
filed multiple replies. (ECF #21, 25).
petition, Petitioner raises three arguments: (1) ineffective
assistance of counsel at the trial court level; (2)
prosecutor misconduct; and, (3) denial of his the right to a
speedy trial. (ECF#1).
Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Kathleen B.
Burke, evaluated the petition and determined that (1) it is
untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); and, (2) Petitioner
foiled to demonstrate an entitlement to equitable tolling of
the statute of limitations. (ECF #27).
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. Civ. P.
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
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).
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. Am, MA
U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Here, neither party objected to the
magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, this Court reviews the Report and Recommendation
for a finding of clear error on the face of the record.
Court carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and
agrees with the findings set forth therein. The Court finds
Magistrate Judge Burke's Report and Recommendation to be
thorough, well-written, well-supported, and correct.
6, 2015, a jury found Petitioner guilty of felonious assault
and the trial court sentenced him to four years in prison.
(ECF #11). Petitioner appealed and on May 23, 2016, the
Eleventh district Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's judgment. (ECF #11). Petitioner had forty-five
(45) days from the May 23, 2016 date (July 7, 2016) to appeal
the Eleventh Court of Appeals' judgment to the Ohio