From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nisonov v. Beightler

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
Jan 10, 2008
Case No. 06-1866 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 10, 2008)

Opinion

Case No. 06-1866.

January 10, 2008


ORDER


On 08/02/2006, 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 Gallas pursuant to Local Rule 72.2 (Dkt. # 4). On 12/13/2007, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner's application for habeas corpus be denied (Dkt. # 11).

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 a 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, Magistrate Judge Gallas' 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.


Summaries of

Nisonov v. Beightler

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
Jan 10, 2008
Case No. 06-1866 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 10, 2008)
Case details for

Nisonov v. Beightler

Case Details

Full title:Ilya Nisonov Petitioner, v. Maggie Beightler, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 10, 2008

Citations

Case No. 06-1866 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 10, 2008)