Opinion
19-cv-2558
02-02-2023
PHILLIP SINGFIELD, Petitioner, v. WARDEN RICHARD A. BOWEN JR., Respondent.
ORDER [Resolving Doc. 1]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:
Petitioner Phillip Singfield is an Ohio inmate serving a 14-year sentence for two counts of aggravated robbery and related offenses. On October 31, 2019, Singfield petitioned this Court for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Doc. 1.
Singfield's petition was referred to Magistrate Judge Clay, and on December 12, 2022, Judge Clay issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court dismiss Singfield's petition and deny him a certificate of appealability.
Doc. 8.
Singfield raises two arguments for relief. First, Singfield asserts that the state trial court violated Singfield's due process rights by dismissing his state habeas petition with prejudice before it held a hearing on the petition's merits. Second, Singfield claims that the state trial court sentenced him ambiguously, such that he was actually sentenced to serve 8 years instead of 14. Because Singfield has already served more than 8 years of his 14-year sentence, he argues that he is now wrongfully incarcerated.
Id. at PageID 749
Id.
The R&R rejects Singfield's due process claim as non-cognizable under federal habeas review. A state court's decision to dismiss with or without prejudice is a matter of state law, and-with limited exceptions that do not apply here-is not reviewable through federal habeas.
Id. at PageID 757 (citing Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991); Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005)).
Likewise, the R&R rejects Singfield's ambiguous-sentencing argument as time-barred under AEDPA and meritless even if it were timely.
Id. at PageID 760-61.
Because Petitioner Singfield filed no objections to the R&R, the Court is free to adopt the R&R without review. Even so, the Court has examined the petition and agrees that both of Petitioner's grounds for relief fail.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
So, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Clay's R&R in full and DENIES Singfield's § 2254 petition and any associated certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.