UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JONATHAN CASIEL, ) CASE NO. 4:18CV2292 CHAVEZ CARDOZA, et al., ) ) Petitioners, ) JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO ) vs. ) ) CHRISTOPHER LaROSE, Warden, ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION et al., ) AND ORDER ) Respondents. ) CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J: This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr.’s Reports and Recommendations (Docs. 20 and 21). In his first Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 20), the Magistrate Judge recommended the Court grant the Federal Respondents’1 Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12)2 because Petitioners’ request for habeas relief is moot due to their release from the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In his second Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 21), the Magistrate Judge recommended the Court grant the Federal 1 The “Federal Respondents” are Thomas Homan; Rebecca Adducci; Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen; and Attorney General Jefferson Sessions. 2 On May 24, 2019, Respondent Christopher LaRose sought to join his co-Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 17). Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, Transfer or Stay Pending Resolution of Damus v. Nielsen, et al., No. 18-cv-578 (D.D.C.) (Doc. 9) and dismiss Petitioners’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) without prejudice. Objections to the Reports and Recommendations were due by

August 6, 2019. Petitioners have not filed an objection to the Reports and Recommendations. 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 objections. 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,

(1985); United States v. Walters,

(6th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Reports and Recommendations of the Magistrate

Judge (Docs. 20 & 21); GRANTS Respondent LaRose’s Joinder in Federal Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17); GRANTS the Federal Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12); and DISMISSES Petitioners’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under

(Doc. 4) as moot and for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Petition is dismissed as to all Respondents. Furthermore, the Court GRANTS the Federal Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, Transfer or Stay Proceedings (Doc. 9) and DISMISSES Petitioners’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) without prejudice as to all parties. Since Petitioners have not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right directly related to their conviction or custody, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

(c)(2); FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christopher A. Boyko CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO United States District Judge Dated: August 30, 2019

-3-