From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jan 4, 2010
CASE NO. 1:07CV3681 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 4, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:07CV3681.

January 4, 2010


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


This matter is before the Court upon a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Natuan Williams ("Petitioner"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. # 1).

On February 18, 2008, this case was automatically referred to Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert for preparation of a Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and LR 72.1. (Dkt. # 5). On September 3, 2008, pursuant to General Order 2008-17, this case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Benita Y. Pearson. (Dkt. # 8). On September 9, 2009, Magistrate Judge Pearson issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court deny the instant petition because the petition is barred by the statute of limitations established by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (Dkt. # 10). Magistrate Judge Pearson also stated that the petition may be dismissed because Petitioner's grounds for relief are either non-cognizable or procedurally defaulted. Id.

FED. R. CIV.P. 72(b) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within ten (14) days after service, but Petitioner has failed to timely file any such objections. Therefore, the Court must assume that Petitioner is satisfied with Magistrate Judge Pearson'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).

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Pearson de novo, and finds that it is well-supported. (Dkt. # 10). Therefore, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Pearson is hereby ADOPTED, and Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jan 4, 2010
CASE NO. 1:07CV3681 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 4, 2010)
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:NATUAN WILLIAMS, PETITIONER, v. STATE OF OHIO, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Jan 4, 2010

Citations

CASE NO. 1:07CV3681 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 4, 2010)