IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Jacob Bowlin, : : Case No. 1:23-cv-300 Plaintiff, : : Judge Susan J. Dlott v. : : Order Adopting Report and Summit Behavioral Healthcare, : Recommendation : Defendant. :

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) entered by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers on May 25, 2023. (Doc. 6.) The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s petition because he has failed to exhaust his available state court remedies. Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus complaining that he was detained illegally. (Doc. 1). Title

(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b)(1) authorize magistrate judges to make recommendations concerning dispositive matters that have been referred to them. Parties then have fourteen days to make, file and serve specific written objections to the report and recommendations. 18 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). If a party files objections to a report and recommendation on a dispositive matter, a district judge must review it under the de novo standard. Baker v. Peterson,

(6th Cir. 2003). When no objections are filed, “[t]here is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review [the] magistrate’s report.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also Weir v. Centurion, No. 3:19-CV-00131,

, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 5, 2021) (“The district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made.”). Nonetheless, some district courts follow the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 72(b) and review the report and recommendation for clear error. See e.g., Roane v. Warden of Corr. Reception Ctr., No. 2:22-CV-2768,

, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 28, 2022); Lassiter v. Dullaghan, No. 1:10-CV-010,

, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 13, 2011). “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive

further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also

(b)(1) (substantially similar). Proper notice has been given to the parties under

(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. Walters,

(6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R have been filed. The Court finds no clear error and agrees with the well-reasoned R&R. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 6) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court

CERTIFIES pursuant to

(a) that an appeal of this Order could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. BY THE COURT:

S/Susan J. Dlott Susan J. Dlott United States District Judge