Summary
involving claim challenging the denial of a motion for new trial based on new evidence without a hearing
Summary of this case from Parrott v. Warden, London Corr. Inst.Opinion
Case No. 1:11cv2765
01-14-2014
DAVID J. BROWN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, LAKE ERIE CORR. INST., Respondent.
ORDER
Judge Christopher A. Boyko
On December 21, 2011, Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. #1). The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke pursuant to Local Rule 72.2. On December 20, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner's application for habeas corpus be denied (Dkt. #20).
FED. R. CIV.P. 72(b) provides that objections to a Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen 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 a duplicative and 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, Magistrate Judge Burke's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt.#1) is DENIED.
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.
________________
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE