UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

JUAN A. MUNOZ, ) CASE NO. 4:23-CV-00425 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE CHARLES ESQUE FLEMING ) vs. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) JAMES E. GRIMES WARDEN GARZA, ) ) OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING Respondent. ) MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND ) RECOMMENDATION

On March 2, 2023, Petitioner Juan A. Munoz (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), pursuant to

. (ECF No. 1). On August 15, 2023, Magistrate Judge James E. Grimes filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) that the Court dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction due to Petitioner’s release from prison. (ECF No. 7). Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that the parties may object to a Magistrate Judge’s R&R within 14 days after service, but Petitioner failed to timely file any such objections. Petitioner was released from prison on June 14, 2023, and failed to notify the Court of a new address. Therefore, the Court must assume that Petitioner is satisfied with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Dickinson v. Tambi, No. 05-1876,

, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2009) (adopting report and recommendation when habeas petitioner was released and failed to update the court with his new mailing address). Any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court's limited resources. Thomas v. Arn,

(6th Cir. 1984), aff'd, 474 US. 140,

,

(1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Servs.,

(6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters,

(6th Cir. 1981). Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which the parties have objected.

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Absent objection, a district court may adopt a R&R without further review. See Peretz v. United States,

(1991); Thomas,

(1985). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Grimes’s R&R, incorporates it fully herein by reference, and DENIES and DISMISSES the Petition. The Court also CERTIFIES, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision cannot be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 28 ULS.C. § 2253(c). IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: September 13, 2023 “ad, Hive CHARLES ESQUE FLEMING UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE