Calhoun v. Tobin

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - On February 6, 2015, the Court ordered Petitioners to show cause by February 15, 2105, why they should not be remanded to their remedy at law by way of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Doc. No. 5). They have filed no response. It is accordingly recommended that this habeas corpus action be dismissed without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 3/9/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 2/19/2015. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
BRIAN E. CALHOUN, et al.,
Petitioners,

:

- vs -

Case No. 3:15-cv-037
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

PETER TOBIN, United States Marshal,
:
Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This is a habeas corpus case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by two persons
committed to the custody of the United States Marshal for civil contempt of court. On February
6, 2015, the Court ordered them to show cause by February 15, 2105, why they should not be
remanded to their remedy at law by way of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit (Doc. No. 5). They have filed no response.
It is accordingly recommended that this habeas corpus action be dismissed without
prejudice.
February 19, 2105.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

1

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to seventeen
days because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party=s objections
within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).

2