United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
ERIC FRIMPONG, Petitioner.
JEFF SESSIONS, Respondent.
C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker (ECF #7).
On January 16, 2018, Mr. Frimpong filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
challenging his detention pending removal from the United
a native and citizen of Ghana, sought asylum at the United
States border on January 8, 2017. (ECF #5-1 at 1). Petitioner
was denied asylum and placed in the custody of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") on January 8, 2017.
Id. On May 25, 2017, an immigration judge ordered
Petitioner removed to Ghana and on January 16, 2018
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing
that he was being held for an unreasonable amount of time
pending his removal to Ghana. (ECF #7 at 1). Petitioner
argued that he was being unlawfully detained and demanded
Respondents release him from custody immediately.
Id. ICE successfully removed Petitioner from the
United States to Ghana on March 12, 2018. (ECF #5-1 at 1).
reviewing the record. Magistrate Judge Parker issued his
Report and Recommendation on April 2, 2018. Magistrate Judge
Parker correctly found that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to consider Mr. Frimpong's petition and
recommended that this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). deny Mr. Frimpong's petition
for writ of habeas corpus. Magistrate Judge Parker found that
a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a 28
U.S.C.S. § 2241 claim if the petitioner is no longer in
custody and since "a petition for writ of habeas corpus
challenges a government custodian's authority to continue
detaining an individual... the individual's release from
custody generally moots a habeas petition.'" See
Prieto v. GlucK 913 F.2d 1159, 1162 (6th Cir. 1990); ECF
#7 at 3; Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624. 632 (1982).
Judge Parker recommended that this Court dismiss Mr.
Frimpong's petition for writ of habeas corpus because
Frimpong is no longer being detained and therefore Mr.
Frimpong's "sole request for relief has been
rendered moot... [and] the court lacks jurisdiction over his
habeas petition." (ECF #7 at 4).
of Review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and
applicable district court standard of review for a
magistrate's report and recommendation depends upon
whether objections were made to that report. When objections
are made to a report and recommendation of a magistrate
judge, the district court reviews the case de novo. FED. R.
Crv. P. 72(b)(3) provides this standard of review. It states,
in pertinent part, the following:
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly
objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify
the recommended disposition; receive further evidence: or
return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
The text of Rule 72(b)(3) addresses only the review of
portions of reports to which timely objections have been
made; it does not indicate the appropriate standard of review
for portions of the report to which no objections have
properly been made. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules
commented on the standard of review stating "when no
timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72
advisory committee* s notes (citations omitted). "It
does not appear that Congress intended to require district
court review of magistrate judge's factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither part}- objects to these findings/*
Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140. 150(1985).
to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. the Court must determine whether to
grant a certificate of appealability as to any of the claims
presented in the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 provides, in
part, as follows:
(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of
appeals from -
(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which
the detention complained of arises out of process issued ...