UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

John P. Honnigford, Case No. 4:20-cv-873

Petitioner,

v. ORDER

Warden Mark Williams,

Respondent.

Before me is the August 11, 2020 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Henderson, (Doc. No. 8), recommending I deny pro se Petitioner John P. Honnigford’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

, (Doc. No. 1), and his emergency motion for injunctive relief, (Doc. No. 2), because Honnigford fails to show he first exhausted his administrative remedies. Judge Henderson recommends I dismiss the petition without prejudice and deny the motion for injunctive relief as moot. Under the relevant statute, “[w]ithin 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.”

(b)(1); United States v. Walters,

(6th Cir. 1981). The fourteen-day period has elapsed and no objections have been filed. The failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation constitutes a waiver of a determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn,

(6th Cir. 1984), aff’d,

(1985); see also Walters,

; Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, Local 231,

, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (“[O]nly those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review”). Following my review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, I adopt the Report and Recommendation, (Doc. No. 8), in its entirety as the Order of the Court. I dismiss Honnigford’s petition without prejudice, United States v. Alam,

(6th Cir. 2020), and deny his motion for injunctive relief, (Doc. No. 2), as moot. Further, I certify there is no basis on

which to issue a certificate of appealability.

; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). So Ordered.

s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge