From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Belcher v. Smith

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jan 21, 2010
CASE NO. 1:09CV627 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 21, 2010)

Summary

concluding that the requirement of a sworn supporting affidavit under Rule 26(B)(d) constitutes an adequate and independent ground under Maupin

Summary of this case from Connally v. Warden

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:09CV627.

January 21, 2010


ORDER


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

On May 14, 2009, this case was automatically referred to Magistrate Judge David S. Perelman for preparation of a Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and LR 72.1. (Dkt. # 15). On December 28, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending that the Court deny the instant petition because Petitioner's claims have been procedurally defaulted and because no constitutional violation has been established. (Dkt. # 15).

FED. R. CIV.P. 72(b) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) 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).

The Court has reviewed the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge de novo, and finds that it is well-supported. Therefore, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Perelman (Dkt. # 15) is hereby ADOPTED, and Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

Finally, 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

Belcher v. Smith

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jan 21, 2010
CASE NO. 1:09CV627 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 21, 2010)

concluding that the requirement of a sworn supporting affidavit under Rule 26(B)(d) constitutes an adequate and independent ground under Maupin

Summary of this case from Connally v. Warden

concluding that the rule was firmly established and regularly followed

Summary of this case from NORRIS v. WARDEN, NCI
Case details for

Belcher v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:SYLVESTER BELCHER, Petitioner, v. KEITH SMITH, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 21, 2010

Citations

CASE NO. 1:09CV627 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 21, 2010)

Citing Cases

NORRIS v. WARDEN, NCI

Further, this rule constitutes an adequate and independent state ground to preclude federal habeas corpus…

Fox v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst.

Time and again, District Courts have held that a petitioner's failure to comply with Rule 26(B)(2)(d) results…