From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hall v. Williams

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Feb 26, 2007
CASE NO. 1:04CV0052 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2007)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:04CV0052.

February 26, 2007


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


On January 12, 2004, Petitioner, David D. Hall, filed a pro se writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the constitutionality of his criminal conviction (Dkt. # 1). The case was referred to Magistrate Judge James S. Gallas pursuant to Local Rule 74.2 (Dkt. # 9). On November 15, 2006, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this matter be closed pending a motion to reopen following Petitioner's exhaustion of state remedies on the unexhausted claims, or, in the alternative, that the petitioner amend his petition within 15 days so as to abandon the unexhausted ground. (Dkt. # 19). Petitioner thereafter filed a motion to amend his petition, which this Court granted on December 12, 2006. (Dkt. #s 20, 21). The matter was referred back to Magistrate Judge Gallas for the issuance of a report and recommendation on the three remaining exhausted grounds. (Dkt. # 21).

On February 2, 2007, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied and dismissed. (Dkt. # 25).

FED. R. CIV.P. 72(b) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within ten (10) days after service, but Petitioner has failed to timely file any such objections. Therefore, the Court must assume that Petitioner is satisfied with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Any further review by this Court would be duplicative and an inefficient use of the Court's limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Therefore, the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (Dkt. # 25) is hereby ADOPTED and Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed.R.App.P. 22(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hall v. Williams

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Feb 26, 2007
CASE NO. 1:04CV0052 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2007)
Case details for

Hall v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:DAVID D. HALL, Petitioner, v. JESSE WILLIAMS, WARDEN, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 26, 2007

Citations

CASE NO. 1:04CV0052 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2007)