Collins V Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution

              IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
              FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
                        WESTERN DIVISION 
Joshua E. Collins,                                                   :               Case No. 1:17-cv-48 
Plaintiff, 
                                                               :               Judge Susan J. Dlott 
v.                                                             : 
Warden, Richland                                                     :               Order Adopting Report and 
Correctional Institute,                                              :               Recommendation 
Defendant.                                                     : 

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s July 1, 2025 Report and 
Recommendation (““R & R”) recommending Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed as moot.  On June 26, 2025, Petitioner’s mother filed a 
notice of suggestion of Petitioner’s death, informing the Court that Petitioner has died.  (Doc. 
45.)  A federal court does not have jurisdiction to consider a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
following the death of the petitioner.  See, e.g., Rosa v. Rewerts, No. 1-:18-cv-940, 2020 WL 
132374 (W.D. Mich. Jan 13, 2020); Griffey v. Lindsey, 349 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2003).  Because 
Petitioner has died, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus 
be dismissed as moot. 
Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b)(1) 
authorize magistrate judges to make recommendations concerning dispositive motions that have 
been referred to them.  Parties then have fourteen days to file and serve specific written 
objections to the report and recommendations,  28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).  If 
a party files objections to a report and recommendation on a dispositive matter, a district judge 
must review the objections under the de novo standard.  Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310

(6th Cir. 2003).  “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition: 
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”  Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 72(b)(3): see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (substantially similar). 
No objections have been filed to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R recommending dismissal of 
this action due to death of the Petitioner.  The Court finds the R&R to be well-taken.  The Court 
ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 46) and dismisses this action from the docket of this Court. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
                              BY THE COURT: 
                               Ait ¢   Mitt) 
                              Susan J. Dlott 
                              United States District Judge