Parsley v. Lamanna

Background

Charles Parsley filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and was proceeding without a lawyer. The matter came before the district court on Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison’s May 2, 2023, report and recommendation. Judge Davison recommended proceeding on the assumption that Parsley preferred to delete the first claim for relief because it was unexhausted, and then evaluating the two remaining claims. The recommendation was to dismiss the petition in its entirety. The opinion does not state the underlying reasons for recommending dismissal of the two remaining claims.

Review of the Recommendation

A district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. When a party makes a timely objection, the district judge reviews the challenged portions independently. When no timely objection is made, the judge may adopt the recommendation if there is no clear error in the record. The report was mailed to Parsley at the address on the docket, and neither party objected. The court reviewed the report, the petition, and the parties’ submissions and found no error, clear or otherwise.

Ruling

The court adopted the report and recommendation as the opinion of the court and dismissed the petition. The opinion does not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Parsley had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.