Lindsey Taylor, on behalf of William Charles Dunn v. Warden, Butler County Jail
Lindsey Taylor, on behalf of William Charles Dunn v. Warden, Butler County Jail
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
LINDSEY TAYLOR, : Case No. 1:25-cv-691 on behalf of : William Charles Dunn, : District Judge Timothy S. Black : Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson Petitioner, : : vs. : : WARDEN, BUTLER COUNTY JAIL, : : Respondent. :
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson. (Doc. 4). Specifically, on October 2, 2025, Judge Jolson entered a Deficiency Order, directing Petitioner to submit a signed copy of the
28 U.S.C. § 2241habeas petition and to show cause within 30 days why the case should not be dismissed as premature or on the ground that Petitioner has not exhausted available state court remedies. (Doc. 3). The Deficiency Order further advised Petitioner that failure to respond to the Deficiency Order within the requisite 30-day period may result in dismissal of the case. (Id. at 5). Petitioner did not respond to the Deficiency Order and, accordingly, on November 12, 2025, Judge Jolson issued a Report and Recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. (Doc. 4). Petition did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has now passed. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the relevant filings in this case. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 4) should be and is hereby adopted in their entirety. Accordingly: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) is ADOPTED; 2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice; 3. The Court finds that any appeal of this Order would be objectively frivolous, and that jurists of reason would not disagree with this Court’s decision. See Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484(2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 327(2003). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the issuance of a certificate of appealability, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); and 4. The Clerk’s Office shall enter judgment accordingly and this case shall be terminated on the docket of this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 12/8/2025 s/ Timothy S. Black Timothy S. Black United States District Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown