Summary
denying habeas relief because the Ohio appellate court's application of Morris in upholding the trial court's refusal to appoint substitute counsel was reasonable
Summary of this case from Cobb v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional InstitutionOpinion
Case No. 1:03 CV 1607.
June 2, 2006
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THE PETITION WITHOUT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Proceeding pro se, plaintiff Leroy Charley ("Mr. Charley") brings a habeas corpus petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the constitutionality of his conviction on eight grounds. (Docket No. 1). This matter was automatically referred to United States Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman for a Report and Recommendation ("RR") pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.2(b)(2). (Docket No. 8). In his RR, Magistrate Judge Baughman finds the pro se petitioner's claims procedurally barred as well as insufficient on the merits as the foregoing decision of the state appellate court was neither objectively unreasonable nor did it involve an unreasonable application of federal law. Accordingly, he recommends this Court dismiss the petition without further proceedings.
No party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's RR. Therefore, this Court will presume the parties are satisfied with the determination. Any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court's limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 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).
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge's RR is adopted. Mr. Charley's petition will be dismissed without further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.