# Brown v. Williams

> District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 6, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10369514

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** May 6, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10369514

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ELLIOT BROWN, ) CASE NO. 4:19CV2772
)
Petitioner, ) SENIOR JUDGE
) CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
vs. )
)
MARK WILLIAMS, Warden, ) MEMORANDUM OF
) OPINION AND ORDER
Respondent. )

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, S.J.:
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 12) to grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) Petitioner Elliot
Brown’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Magistrate
Judge Greenberg also recommended denying as moot Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel (Doc. 8). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by April 20, 2021.
Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides that objections to a report and
recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after service. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2).
Petitioner has failed to timely file any such objection. Therefore, the Court must assume that
Petitioner is satisfied with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Any further review by this
Court would be duplicative and an inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) of the
Magistrate Judge; GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10); DISMISSES Petitioner’s
Petition (Doc. 1); and DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc.
8).
The Court finds an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3). Since Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional
right directly related to his conviction or custody, the Court declines to issue a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); FED. R. APP. P. 22(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
Senior United States District Judge

Dated: May 6, 2021

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10369514. Public record. Not legal advice.