Opinion
CASE NO. 2:11-CV-1054
12-15-2011
JAMES E. LUNDEEN, SR., M.D., Petitioner, v. STATE MEDICAL BOARD OF OHIO, Respondent.
JUDGE GRAHAM
MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING
ORDER
On November 29, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts recommending that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed because petitioner is not in custody within the meaning of the statutes governing habeas corpus. Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 4. Petitioner has filed objections to that recommendation. Objection, Doc. No. 6. The Court will consider the matter de novo. 28 U.S.C. 636(b): Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Petitioner argues that he is in custody because he is subject to restraints not shared by the public at large in view of the Ohio Medical Board's suspension of his license to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Ohio, and his resulting inability to obtain employment as a physician. See Objections. The concept of custody for habeas corpus proceedings is not coextensive with a denial of an individual's liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, the custody required in habeas corpus proceedings is actual, physical custody or a substitute for such custody, such as release on bond. See Lawrence v. 48th Dist. Court, 560 F.3d 475, 480 (6th Cir. 2009)(discussing Hensley v. Mun. Court, 411 U.S. 345 (1973)). The suspension of one's license to practice medicine is simply not the custody required of habeas corpus proceedings.
For the reasons detailed in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Petitioner's objections are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 4, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.
The Clerk shall enter FINAL JUDGMENT.
__________
James L. Graham
United States District Judge