Abdullahi Onipe v. Lynch et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Case No. 2:16-cv-650
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
LORETTA LYNCH, et al.,
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 1, 2017
/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?