From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ortiz v. Wolfe

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Apr 14, 2009
CASE NO. 2:08-CV-94 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2009)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:08-CV-94.

April 14, 2009


OPINION AND ORDER


On March 20, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed as unexhausted unless petitioner notified the Court within ten days of the deletion of his unexhausted claims from the petition. Although the parties were advised of the right to object to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and of the consequences of failing to do so, no objections have been filed. The docket reflects that petitioner's notification of the Report and Recommendation was returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address, see Doc. No. 18; however, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to keep the Court advised of his current whereabouts.

The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.

It is so ORDERED.


Summaries of

Ortiz v. Wolfe

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Apr 14, 2009
CASE NO. 2:08-CV-94 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2009)
Case details for

Ortiz v. Wolfe

Case Details

Full title:JOSE E. ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY WOLFE, Warden, Respondents

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Apr 14, 2009

Citations

CASE NO. 2:08-CV-94 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2009)

Citing Cases

Summers v. Warden, Allen Corr. Inst.

Petitioner did not pursue a timely direct appeal from his judgment of conviction and has apparently never…

Simpson v. Warden, Pickaway Corr. Inst.

Thus, this action is subject to dismissal on this basis. See Summers v. Warden, 2017 WL 412875, at *5 (S.D.…