Anderson v. Outlaw
ORDER that the Court considers Anderson's motion 15 as his objections to 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; the Judgment 13 and Order 12 entered on 4/19/11 are hereby set aside as premature; the Court adopts the 9 Recommended Disposition of Magistrate Judge Beth Deere and dismisses Anderson's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; judgment will be entered accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 4/25/11. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NO. 2:11CV00013 JLH-BD
T.C. OUTLAW, Warden,
Federal Correctional Complex, Forrest City, Arkansas
On March 30, 2011, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in which it was
recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus by Steven Anderson be denied with
prejudice. Anderson filed a “motion for traverse,” which was received by the Court on April 1,
2011, bearing a signature date of March 28, 2011. On April 19, 2011, the Court adopted the report
and recommendation in its entirety, considering the “motion for traverse” as Anderson’s objections
to the report and recommendation. On April 21, 2011, the Court received a “motion of rebuttal to
the recommended disposition,” which Anderson apparently signed on April 18, 2011. Although the
Clerk has docketed that document as a motion for reconsideration, the Court will consider it as
Anderson’s objections to the recommended disposition of the magistrate judge. The judgment and
order entered on April 19, 2011, are hereby set aside as premature. Upon de novo review,
considering Anderson’s “motion of rebuttal to the recommended disposition” as his objection to the
recommended disposition, the Court adopts the recommended disposition of Magistrate Judge Beth
Deere. Anderson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of April, 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?