Jones v. Beighter

Filing 11

Order Adopting Report and Recommendation re 9 Report and Recommendation, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254), Order of Case Dismissal. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. Further, the Court finds an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith and declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 6/10/2009. (R,D)

Jones v. Beighter

Doc. 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EDDIE L. JONES Petitioner, -vsMAGGIE BEIGHTLER, Warden Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 5:08cv1479 ORDER Judge Christopher A. Boyko

On June 19, 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 Greg White pursuant to Local Rule 72.2 (Dkt. # 3 ). On May 20, 2009, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner's application for habeas corpus be denied (Dkt. # 9 ). Under Federal Rule 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636, the district court is required to review de novo any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which a specific objection is made. A party who fails to file an objection waives the right to appeal. U.S. v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981). In Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the Supreme Court held: "It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings." "A party may not file a general objection to the entirety of the magistrate's report." Ayers v. Bradshaw, No. 3:07CV2663, 2008 WL 906100, at *1 (N.D. Ohio March 31, 2008) (citing Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th Cir. 1999)). On June 8, 2009, Petitioner filed an objection that does not address any issues raised in the Report and Recommendation and is equivalent to an utter failure to object.
Dockets.Justia.com

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 White's 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. Dated: June 10, 2009

S/Christopher A. Boyko CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE