Abdullahi Onipe v. Lynch et al

Filing 59

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the pending Motions (Docs. 6 , 16 , 19 , 37 , and 39 ) be DENIED AS MOOT. Objections to R&R due by 3/15/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 3/1/2017. (agm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION SALISU AUGUSTINE ABDULLAHI ONIPE, Case No. 2:16-cv-650 Judge Michael H. Watson Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson Petitioner, v. LORETTA LYNCH, et al., Respondents. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on numerous Motions: Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 6), Petitioner’s Emergency Motion to Stay Removal/Deportation Proceedings (Doc. 16), Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Emergency Motion to Stay Removal/Deportation Proceedings (Doc. 19), Petitioner’s Emergency Motion to Grant Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Making a Ruling (Doc. 37), and Petitioner’s Motion to Grant Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 39). This Court has scheduled a hearing for March 8, 2017, to receive evidence on the Petition and, more specifically, on whether there exists a categorical impediment to the issuance of Petitioner’s travel documents. Petitioner, who has been appointed counsel (Doc. 49), and Respondent shall have the opportunity to make oral motions during the hearing. Thus, the Court RECOMMENDS that the pending Motions be DENIED AS MOOT in light of the current procedural posture. As noted, counsel are free to renew or make additional motions during the hearing and will be permitted to submit dispositive motions or briefing after the hearing. If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: March 1, 2017 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson KIMBERLY A. JOLSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?