Davis v. Franklin County Corrections Center II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DAQUAN DAVIS,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, FRANKLIN COUNTY
CORRECTIONS CENTER II, et al.,
Respondent.
) 	CASE NO. 5:25-cv-00154
)
) 	JUDGE DAVID A. RUIZ
)
)
)
)
) 	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
)
)
Introduction
Petitioner Daquan Davis has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus naming as
Respondents “the State of Ohio” and “Franklin County Head Sherrif.” R. 1. After obtaining
leave, the Warden of the Franklin County Corrections Center II, where Petitioner was
incarcerated, moved to be dismissed as a party, claiming that although Petitioner was then
incarcerated at that facility, that imprisonment was unrelated to the criminal conviction at issue
in the habeas petition. R. 12. Petitioner replied in opposition, claiming that the Warden was the
proper respondent who should not be dismissed because Petitioner was being held in Franklin
County pursuant to a detainer from Summit County. The Franklin County Warden thereupon
filed a second motion to dismiss, asserting that any claims him were moot because Petitioner was
Case: 5:25-cv-00154-DAR Doc #: 28 Filed: 03/18/26 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
no longer in custody in Franklin County. R. 17. Petitioner did not respond.
Pursuant to an earlier referral under Local Rule 72.2, see, non-document order of
February 12, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge James E. Grimes, Jr. issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R) recommending that both of the Warden’s motions to dismiss be
granted. (R. 19). The R&R stated, inter alia, that any objections to the R&R must be entered
within 14 days after the objecting party was served with a copy of the R&R. Id., Page ID # 1455.
No timely objections have been filed by either party and no requests for additional time have
been filed.
Standard of Review
When a magistrate judge submits a Report and Recommendation, the Court is required to
conduct a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which an objection has been made.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). By failing to file specific objections to a report
and recommendation, a party forfeits any challenge to the report and recommendation and
forfeits the “right to appeal the unobjected-to issues.” Shophar v. Gyllenborg, 2019 WL
4843745, at *2 (6 th Cir. Apr. 19, 2019) (citations omitted). “A general objection to the entirety of
the magistrate’s report has the same effects as would a failure to object.” Howard v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); accord Austin v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 2021 WL 1540389, at *4 (N.D. Ohio, Apr. 19, 2021) (finding that a general objection that
merely restates an argument previously presented or simply voices a disagreement with a
magistrate judge’s suggested resolution “has the same effects as would a failure to object.”)
(citations omitted); United States v. Dawson, 2020 WL 109137, at *1 (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 9, 2020)
(“the Court is under no obligation to review de novo objections that are merely an attempt to
have the district court reexamine the same arguments set forth in the petition and briefs.”)
Case: 5:25-cv-00154-DAR Doc #: 28 Filed: 03/18/26 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
Analysis and Conclusion
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, finds no clear error,
and agrees with the findings set forth therein. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (R. 19) is hereby ADOPTED. Therefore, the motions by Warden of the
Franklin County Corrections Center II seeking his dismissal (R. 12, 17) are GRANTED and the
Warden is DISMISSED as a Respondent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ David A. Ruiz
David A. Ruiz
United States District Judge
Date: March 18, 2026
Case: 5:25-cv-00154-DAR Doc #: 28 Filed: 03/18/26 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>