Bertram S. Mann, IV v. Heartland Behavioral Healthcare

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION BERTRAM S. MANN, IV, ) CASE NO. 5:25-cv-1851 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE CHARLES E. FLEMING ) v. ) ) HEARTLAND BEHAVIORAL ) OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING HEALTHCARE, ) MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND ) RECOMMENDATION Respondent. ) ) On September 5, 2025, Petitioner Bertram S. Mann, IV, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (ECF No. 1). The Petition asserts that Petitioner is currently held in custody at Heartland Behavioral Healthcare in Massillon, Ohio pursuant to an order of the Probate Court of Stark County, Ohio and requests relief in the form of immediate release from custody. (Id. at PageID #1–2, 7).

On October 23, 2025, Magistrate Judge Henderson ordered Petitioner to pay the filing fee or file a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) within 30 days. (ECF No. 2).

Magistrate Judge Henderson warned Petitioner that a failure to comply might result in dismissal of this action without further notice. (Id.). On December 19, 2025, Magistrate Judge Henderson issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court dismiss the Petition without prejudice because Petitioner had failed to pay the filing fee or file a proper IFP application by the 30-day deadline. (ECF No. 5). Magistrate Judge Henderson noted that the October 23, 2025 Order had been returned undeliverable but found that dismissal was still warranted because Petitioner had an affirmative duty to notify the Court of any change in address. (Id. at PageID #19).

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. The R&R also gave the parties notice of the 14-day time limit for filing objections. (/d. at PageID #20). As of this Opinion and Order, no objections have been filed.

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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Absent objection, a district court may adopt an R&R without further review. See Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939 (1991); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 141-42 (1985).

There being no objections, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Henderson’s R&R (ECF No. 5), incorporates it fully herein by reference, and DISMISSES the Petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘add Have Date: January 7, 2026 CHARLES E. FLEMING UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE