Summary
holding that "[t]hese allegations of violation of state law fail to rise to the level of a denial of fundamental fairness and, therefore, are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus;" and in any event, the state appellate court's determination "that severing the offending provisions of the sentencing statute was not a violation of the principle of the separation of powers" was neither "objectively unreasonable" nor "involved an unreasonable application of federal law"
Summary of this case from Bennett v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional InstituteOpinion
Case No. 1:08CV2522.
July 16, 2009
ORDER
On October 23, 2008, 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 David S. Perelman pursuant to Local Rule 72.2 (Dkt. # 3). On June 24, 2009, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner's application for habeas corpus be dismissed (Dkt. # 9).
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 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 Perelman's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. # 1) 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.