Graewe, Sr. v. Williams, No. 5:2010cv00506 - Document 17 (N.D. Ohio 2011)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order adopting the re 14 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and dismissing the petition for Habeas Corpus. An appeal from this decision may not be taken in good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. Judge John R. Adams on 8/19/11. (K,C)

Download PDF
Graewe, Sr. v. Williams Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION FRANKIE GRAEWE, Sr. Petitioner, -vsJESSE WILLIAMS Warden, Respondant. , ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:10-cv-506 JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER This matter came before the Court on Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Doc. 1. This Court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge submitted a report and recommendation recommending that the Court deny the petition. Doc. 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) provides that the parties may object to a report and recommendation within 14 days after service. Petitioner was further granted a 60 day extension to respond to the report and recommendation. Petitioner did not file any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and 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); 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). Accordingly, the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby adopted. The Petition for Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Dockets.Justia.com §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. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 19, 2011 /s/ John R. Adams_______________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.