Russaw v. Gray

• Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
• Decided: August 23, 2024
• Docket: 1:23-cv-01669
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

PEARSON, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

STANLEY RUSSAW, ) ) CASE NO. 1:23-CV-1669 Petitioner, ) ) v. ) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON ) WARDEN DAVID W. GRAY, ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND Respondent. ) ORDER ) [Regarding ECF No. 1]

On July 8, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation denying Petitioner’s request for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The magistrate judge recommended the Court deny the petition. ECF No. 8 at PageID #: 814. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service. In the instant case, objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by August 21, 2024.1 Neither party has timely filed objections. Any further review by the 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, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the

1 Petitioner, through counsel, requested an extension of time to file objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, which the Court granted. See ECF No. 9; Order [non-document], 07/18/2024. magistrate judge is hereby adopted. Stanley Russaw’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. 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.

August 23, 2024 /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Date Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge