Esmail v. Sloan, No. 4:2015cv02327 - Document 9 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Limbert (ECF No. 8 ). The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1 ) is dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 12/15/2017. (JLG)

Download PDF
Esmail v. Sloan Doc. 9 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION AMAD ESMAIL, Petitioner, v. WARDEN SLOAN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:15CV2327 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding ECF No. 8] Pro se Petitioner Amad Esmail filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Respondent Warden Brigham Sloan filed a Return of Writ. ECF No. 5. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). On October 6, 2017, Magistrate Judge Limbert submitted his report and recommendation, recommending dismissal of the petition. ECF No. 8. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service. Objections to the magistrate judge’s report were, therefore, due on October 23, 2017.1 Petitioner has not filed any objections to Magistrate Judge Limbert’s report and recommendation. Any further review by the Court would be a duplicative and 1 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), three days must be added to the fourteen-day time period because Petitioner was served the Magistrate Judge’s Report by mail. See Thompson v. Chandler, 36 F. App’x. 783, 784 (6th Cir. 2002). Dockets.Justia.com (4:15CV2327) inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. December 15, 2017 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.