Dillard v. Marshall et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION - After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge's report, the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. The court WILL DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Dillard's petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court will enter a separate final order consistent with this memorandum opinion. Signed by Judge Annemarie Carney Axon on 8/2/2022. (KEK)

Download PDF
FILED 2022 Aug-02 AM 10:16 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHWESTERN DIVISION EDWARD RAY DILLARD, Petitioner, v. STEVE MARSHALL, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 3:21-cv-00809-ACA-JHE MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 12, 2022, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending that the court dismiss without prejudice Petitioner Edward Ray Dillard’s petition for writ of habeas corpus due to Mr. Dillard’s failure to exhaust his claims in the state courts. (Doc. 23). The magistrate judge notified the parties of their right to object and warned them that failure to object waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. (Id. at 14–15). The deadline for objections has passed without receipt of any objections. The parties’ failure to file specific objections waives any challenge to the proposed findings and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s report, the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. The court WILL DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Dillard’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court will enter a separate final order consistent with this memorandum opinion. DONE and ORDERED this August 2, 2022. _________________________________ ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?