Opinion
CASE NO. 1:14cv919
10-27-2015
RYAN DRIGGINS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN LAZAROFF, Respondent.
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding ECF No. 14]
Pro se Petitioner Ryan Driggins filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that asserted nineteen grounds for relief. ECF No. 1. Respondent Warden Alan Lazaroff filed a Return of Writ. ECF No. 10. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). On September 28, 2015, the magistrate judge submitted a report and recommendation (ECF No. 14) recommending that the petition be dismissed in part and denied in part because a portion of Ground Five is procedurally defaulted, a portion of Ground Nineteen is not cognizable, and the remainder of Petitioner's grounds fail on the merits.
The caption also lists Respondent as "Warden Lazaroff," but the correct spelling and appellation is "Alan Lazaroff, Warden." ECF No. 10.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service. Objections to the magistrate judge's report were, therefore, due on October 15, 2015. Petitioner has not filed any objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Any further review by the 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 . Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v . Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), three days must be added to the fourteen-day time period because Petitioner was served the Magistrate Judge's Report by mail. See Thompson v . Chandler, 36 F. App'x. 783, 784 (6th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is dismissed in part and denied in part. 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. October 27, 2015
Date
/s/ Benita Y . Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge