Esparza, Jr. v. Wolfe

Filing 16

Memorandum Opinion and Order adopting the 15 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and dismisses the complaint; An appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. Judge John R. Adams on 9/30/08. (K,C)

Esparza, Jr. v. Wolfe

Doc. 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION SIMEON ESPARZA, JR., Petitioner, v. JEFFERY WOLFE, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 3:06CV1690 JUDGE JOHN ADAMS MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER RE: DISMISSING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Simeon Esparza, Jr., filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging four grounds for relief which challenge the constitutional sufficiency of his conviction and sentence on drug possession charges. On August 30, 2006, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr., for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). See Order (Doc. 3). On September 12, 2008, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) recommending that the petition be denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within ten (10) days after service, but neither Petitioner, who is represented by counsel (See Doc. 12), nor Respondent has filed any such objections. Therefore, the Court must assume that the parties are 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. 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).

Dockets.Justia.com

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby adopted. Simeon Esparza's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus will be dismissed. 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.

__September 30, 2008____ Date

__s/ John R. Adams___________ John R. Adams U.S. District Judge