Honnigford v. Williams, No. 4:2020cv00873 - Document 9 (N.D. Ohio 2021)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order I adopt the Report and Recommendation, (Doc. No. 8), in its entirety as the Order of the Court. I dismiss Honnigford's petition without prejudice, United States v. Alam, and deny his motion for injunctive relief, (Doc. No. 2), as moot. Further, I certify there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. re 8 . Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 3/8/2021. (S,AL)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Honnigford v. Williams Doc. 9 Case: 4:20-cv-00873-JJH Doc #: 9 Filed: 03/08/21 1 of 2. PageID #: 48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION John P. Honnigford, Case No. 4:20-cv-873 Petitioner, v. ORDER Warden Mark Williams, Respondent. Before me is the August 11, 2020 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Henderson, (Doc. No. 8), recommending I deny pro se Petitioner John P. Honnigford’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Doc. No. 1), and his emergency motion for injunctive relief, (Doc. No. 2), because Honnigford fails to show he first exhausted his administrative remedies. Judge Henderson recommends I dismiss the petition without prejudice and deny the motion for injunctive relief as moot. Under the relevant statute, “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). The fourteen-day period has elapsed and no objections have been filed. The failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation constitutes a waiver of a determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also Walters, 638 F.2d at 950; Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (“[O]nly those Dockets.Justia.com Case: 4:20-cv-00873-JJH Doc #: 9 Filed: 03/08/21 2 of 2. PageID #: 49 specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review”). Following my review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, I adopt the Report and Recommendation, (Doc. No. 8), in its entirety as the Order of the Court. I dismiss Honnigford’s petition without prejudice, United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 836 (6th Cir. 2020), and deny his motion for injunctive relief, (Doc. No. 2), as moot. Further, I certify there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). So Ordered. s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick 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.
