Ashqar v. LaRose et al

Filing 38

Memorandum of Opinion and Order. The Court Adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Related doc # 37 ). Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Related doc # 30 ) is granted. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Related doc # 1 ) is dismissed for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery (Related doc # 25 ) is denied as moot. Petitioner has not made a substantial showi ng of a denial of a constitutional right directly related to his conviction or custody. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 4/24/2019. (H,CM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DR. ABDELHALEEM ASHQAR,
Petitioner,
vs.
REBECCA ADDUCCI,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:18CV1141
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J:
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 37) to Grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30) and Deny
Petitioner’s Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 25) as Moot. Objections to the Report
and Recommendation were due by April 9, 2019. Petitioner has not filed an objection to the
Report and Recommendation.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides that objections to a report and
recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after service. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2).
Petitioner has failed to timely file any such objections. Therefore, the Court must assume that
Petitioner is satisfied with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Any further review by this
Court would be duplicative and an inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30) and DISMISSES Petitioner’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) for a lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Renewed Motion to Compel
Discovery (Doc. 25) as moot.
Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right directly
related to his conviction or custody. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); FED. R. APP. P. 22(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge
Dated: April 24, 2019

-2-