govinfo:USCOURTS-ohnd-1_25-cv-00574-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
 
On March 19, 2026, Magistrate Judge Grimes Jr.  filed a report and recommendation  
(“R&R”) recommending that the Court dismiss Hodge ’s petition for writ of habeas corpus . ECF 
12. It is now April 20, 2026, and no objections to the R&R have been filed. 
Under the relevant statute, 
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may 
serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and 
recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court 
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of t he report 
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 
objection is made. 
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Local Civ. R. 72.3(b) . The failure to 
timely file written objections to a Magistrate Judge’s R&R constitutes a waiver of the right to 
obtain a de novo review of the R&R in the district court.  United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 
949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149- 50 (1985). The failure to file written 
JAVONTE L. HODGES,  
 
 
 Petitioner, 
 
 v. 
 
WARDEN ANGELA STUFF, 
 
 Respondent. 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
Case No. 1:25-CV-00574 
 
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER 
 
MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
JAMES E. GRIMES JR. 
 
ORDER & OPINION 
Case: 1:25-cv-00574-DAP  Doc #: 13  Filed:  04/20/26  1 of 2.  PageID #: <pageID>
2 
 
objections also results in a waiver of the right to appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813, 814-15 (6th 
Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 
Here, the time for objection has passed and no objections have been filed. Nonetheless, the 
Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s thorough R&R. The Court agrees with the Magistrate 
Judge that Hodges’ petition is time-barred, as his conviction became final on January 26, 2016, for 
purposes of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 
Stat. 1214. ECF 12, at 8 -9. And Hodges’ cannot aver himself of the statutory tolling provision  
because all of his post-conviction filings were filed after his conviction had already become final. 
Even if Hodges’ petition were timely, this Court is barred from reviewing his claims because they 
concern matters of state law, are based on an adequate an d independent ground regarding a 
constitutional issue, or were previously waived. See ECF 12, at 11-12. Thus, the Court ADOPTS 
the R&R in full and DISMISSES Hodges’ petition for writ of habeas corpus. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: April 20, 2026     
      s/Dan Aaron Polster     
United States District Judge 
Case: 1:25-cv-00574-DAP  Doc #: 13  Filed:  04/20/26  2 of 2.  PageID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight