From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clark v. Eberlin

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Aug 13, 2009
CASE NO. 5:08CV1461 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 13, 2009)

Opinion

CASE NO. 5:08CV1461.

August 13, 2009


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


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

On August 12, 2008, this case was automatically referred to Magistrate Judge Greg White for preparation of a Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and LR 72.2. (Dkt. # 3). On December 16, 2008, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. # 8). On January 21, 2009, Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time, which the Court granted, for a period of sixty days, to obtain legal representation. (Dkt. # 9). On April 28, 2009, Magistrate Judge White issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Petition be dismissed without further proceedings. (Dkt. # 10). On May 11, 2009, Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time, which the Court also granted, for a period of sixty days, to obtain legal representation. (Dkt. # 11).

FED. R. CIV.P. 72(b) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within ten (10) days after service, but even after receiving a sixty day extension of time, Petitioner has failed to timely file any such objections. Therefore, the Court must assume that Petitioner is satisfied with Magistrate Judge White'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 White de novo, and finds that it is well-supported. Therefore, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge White is hereby ADOPTED. (Dkt. # 10). Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (Dkt. # 8). Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Clark v. Eberlin

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Aug 13, 2009
CASE NO. 5:08CV1461 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 13, 2009)
Case details for

Clark v. Eberlin

Case Details

Full title:ALEX J. CLARK PETITIONER, v. MICHELLE EBERLIN, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Aug 13, 2009

Citations

CASE NO. 5:08CV1461 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 13, 2009)

Citing Cases

Shavers v. Warden, Franklin Cnty. Corr. Ctr.

Petitioner's pro se motions seeking judicial release did not toll the limitations period because such motions…