UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

SAZAR DENT, AKA CAESAR AGUSTO ) CASE NO. 3:18-cv-822 JIMENEZ-MENDEZ, ) ) ) PETITIONER, ) JUDGE SARA LIOI ) vs. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM BARR, et al., ) ) ) RESPONDENTS. )

Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in the above-entitled action. (Doc. No. 19 [R&R].) Under the relevant statute: [. . .] Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.

28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C). In this case, the fourteen-day period has elapsed and no objections have been filed. The failure to file written objections to a Magistrate Judge=s report and recommendation constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn,

(6th Cir. 1984), affd,

(1985); see United States v. Walters,

(6th Cir. 1981). The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge=s report and recommendation and adopts the same. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion of respondent William Barr to dismiss as moot the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner Sazar Dent. This action 1s closed. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2020 iss we HONORABLE S LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE