Henry v. Williams

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Henry v. Williams

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES E. HENRY, ) CASE NO. 4:19CV322 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO ) vs. ) ) MARK K. WILLIAMS, Warden, ) MEMORANDUM OF ) OPINION AND ORDER Respondent. )

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.: This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) to find Petitioner James E. Henry’s Petition under

28 U.S.C. § 2241

is moot and dismiss the Petition in its entirety with prejudice. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by August 13, 2019. 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 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,

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 of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 16); GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Petition as Moot (Doc. 15); and DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241

(Doc. 1) as moot. 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 United States District Judge

Dated: September 9, 2019

Reference

Status
Unknown