Curtis v. Gibson et al
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING 30 PARTIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS as this Court's findings in all respects. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 08/01/2014. (rhm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
Case No. 5:14-cv-00090-KGB-JJV
GIBSON, Deputy Warden, Delta
Regional Unit; et al.
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by
United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 30) and plaintiff Demetrius Curtis’s
objections (Dkt. No. 31). After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo
review of the record, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations
should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all
respects. It is therefore ordered that Mr. Curtis’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
The Court writes separately to address Mr. Curtis’s objections. He argues that he has
exhausted his state remedies and that this Court may consider his request for what is habeas
relief because he recently filed a writ of habeas corpus in state court. However, to have
exhausted his state remedies, Mr. Curtis must have sought and been denied relief in the state
courts, including in the appropriate state appellate courts. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
477 (1973); see Turnage v. Fabian, 606 F.3d 933, 936 (8th Cir. 2010). This requirement
provides states the opportunity to review and correct alleged violations of a petitioner’s federal
rights. Turnage, 606 F.3d at 936. Mr. Curtis has not been denied relief in the state courts.
SO ORDERED this the 1st day of August, 2014.
KRISTINE G. BAKER
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?