Mann, IV v. Heartland Behavioral Healthcare

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BERTRAM S. MANN, IV,
Petitioner,
v.
HEARTLAND BEHAVIORAL
HEALTHCARE,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:25-cv-1851
JUDGE CHARLES E. FLEMING
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
On September 5, 2025, Petitioner Bertram S. Mann, IV, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (ECF No. 1). The Petition asserts
that Petitioner is currently held in custody at Heartland Behavioral Healthcare in Massillon, Ohio
pursuant to an order of the Probate Court of Stark County, Ohio and requests relief in the form of
immediate release from custody. (Id. at PageID #1–2, 7).
On October 23, 2025, Magistrate Judge Henderson ordered Petitioner to pay the filing fee
or file a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) within 30 days. (ECF No. 2).
Magistrate Judge Henderson warned Petitioner that a failure to comply might result in dismissal
of this action without further notice. (Id.). On December 19, 2025, Magistrate Judge Henderson
issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court dismiss the Petition
without prejudice because Petitioner had failed to pay the filing fee or file a proper IFP application
by the 30-day deadline. 	(ECF No. 5). 	Magistrate Judge Henderson noted that the October 23,
2025 Order had been returned undeliverable but found that dismissal was still warranted because
Petitioner had an affirmative duty to notify the Court of any change in address. 	(Id. at PageID
#19).
Case: 5:25-cv-01851-CEF Doc #: 6 Filed: 01/07/26 1 of 2. PageID #: <pageID>

2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that the parties may object to a Magistrate Judge’s R&R
within 14 days after service. The R&R also gave the parties notice of the 14-day time limit for
filing objections. 	(Id. at PageID #20). 	As of this Opinion and Order, no objections have been
filed.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a district court must conduct a de novo review of those
portions of the R&R to which the parties have objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3). 	Absent objection, a district court may adopt an R&R without further review. 	See
Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939 (1991); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 141–42 (1985).
There being no objections, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Henderson’s R&R (ECF No. 5),
incorporates 	it 	fully 	herein 	by 	reference, 	and 	DISMISSES 	the 	Petition 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: January 7, 2026 	____________________________________
CHARLES E. FLEMING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
___________________________
Case: 5:25-cv-01851-CEF Doc #: 6 Filed: 01/07/26 2 of 2. PageID #: <pageID>