Scott v. Merlak, No. 4:2017cv00296 - Document 16 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Parker's 9 Report and Recommendation is supported by the record, and agrees with the recommendation to deny Petitioner's Moti on for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8 ). Because any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court's limited resources, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 9 . Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8 ) is denied. The matter remains pending on the docket of Magistrate Judge Parker. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 12/15/2017. (JLG)

Download PDF
Scott v. Merlak Doc. 16 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LAMONT SCOTT, Petitioner, v. WARDEN STEVEN MERLAK, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:17CV296 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving ECF No. 8] Pro Se Petitioner Lamont Scott, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) Elkton, Ohio, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1). The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker for a Report and Recommendation on the Petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.2.(b)(2). When Respondent Warden Steven Merlak failed to file his return of writ as ordered, Petitioner moved for summary judgment. See ECF No. 8. “Essentially, [Petitioner sought] default judgment for Respondent’s failure to [timely] respond.” ECF No. 9 at PageID#: 127. Magistrate Judge Parker acknowledged “the need to expeditiously adjudicate a habeas corpus petition,” but drew the line at rendering default judgment in a habeas proceeding due to Respondent’s failure to answer.1 Id. The Report issued reflects that reasoning and recommends that the Court deny Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 9. Neither party has objected to the Report and Recommendation. 1 Respondent eventually filed his answer. See ECF No. 13. Dockets.Justia.com (4:17CV296) The Federal Magistrate Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which the parties have made an objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). Parties must file any objections to a Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of service. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to object within this time waives a party’s right to appeal the district court’s judgment. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Absent objection, a district court may adopt a magistrate judge’s report without review. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149. Given that no objections have been filed, the Court finds that the Report is supported by the record, and agrees with the recommendation to deny Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 8). Because any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.2 ECF No. 9. Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8) is denied. The matter remains pending on the docket of Magistrate Judge Parker. IT IS SO ORDERED. December 15, 2017 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge 2 Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Walters, 638 F.2d at 949-50. 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.