United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
Y. Pearson United States District Judge
Se Petitioner Isacc Howard filed a Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No.
1) alleging one (1) ground for relief which challenges the
constitutional sufficiency of the denial of his motion for
leave to file delayed appeal in Court of (1:16CV0646)
of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District Case No. CA-15-103337. The
case was referred to Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman,
Jr. for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). On September 20, 2017,
the magistrate judge issued a Report & Recommendation
(ECF No. 18). In his Report, the magistrate judge recommends
that the petition be dismissed as barred by 28 U.S.C. §
2244's statute of limitations. ECF No. 18 at PageID #:
315. As noted in the Report, Petitioner has failed to show
any extraordinary circumstances that would justify equitable
tolling of the statute of limitations. ECF No. 18 at PageID
#: 316-17. Moreover, he is not entitled to the actual
innocence exception. ECF No. 18 at PageID #: 317.
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 4, 2017. But, neither party has
timely filed any such objections. Therefore, the Court must
assume that the parties are satisfied with the magistrate
judge's recommendations. Any further review by this Court
would be a duplicative and 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. Secretary of Health and Human Services,
932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
the Report & Recommendation of the magistrate judge is
hereby adopted.Isaac Howard's Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus will be dismissed.
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).
Clerk is directed to issue a copy of this Memorandum of
Opinion and Order by regular mail to Isaac Howard, #A398-648,
Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, 2240 Hubbard Road,
Youngstown Ohio, 44505.
 Warden Alan Lazaroff was the original
respondent. He was sued in an official capacity as a public
officer. According to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction website
visited October 20, 2017)), Petitioner is currently serving a
term of incarceration at the Northeast Ohio Correctional
Center for one count of murder with a firearm specification
and two (2) counts of attempted murder. Christopher LaRose
currently is the Warden at that facility. Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Wainwright's name has
been automatically substituted as a party.
It is the party, not the court, who bears the burden
of apprising the court of any changes to his mailing address.
See Yeschick v. Mineta, 675 F.3d 622, 630 (6th Cir.
2012) (citing Casimir v. Sunrise Fin., Inc., 299
Fed.Appx. 591, 593 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming district
court's denial of Rule 60(b) motion when movants claimed
due to house fire they did not receive mail informing them of
court's entry of summary judgment); Soliman
v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir. 2005)
(“[A] litigant who invokes the processes of the federal
courts is responsible for maintaining communication with the
court during the pendency of his lawsuit.”); Watsy
v. Richards, No. 86-1856, 1987 WL 37151, at *1 (6th Cir.
April 20, 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to prosecute
when appellant failed to provide district court with
“current address necessary to enable communication with
 Two weeks after the 14-day period for
objections expired, Petitioner filed an untimely motion
seeking a 180-day extension to respond to the Report and
Recommendation. ECF No. 19. The motion for extension of time
is denied as untimely and serving only to delay the
inevitable dismissal of the petition for the reasons given in