CLAIR v. BLACKMON
ORDER - Petitioner's 4 motion to amend his original petition, is DENIED as unnecessary, as petitioner's 5 amended petition, was required by court 2 order and was accepted and considered by the court. The Magi strate Judge's 6 Report and Recommendation is adopted. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction, as petitioner has not demonstrated entitlement to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The clerk is directed to close the file. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 5/24/2017. (alb)
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:17cv90/MCR/CJK
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation dated May 3, 2017. ECF No. 6. Petitioner has been furnished a
copy of the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file
objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made
a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been made.
Having considered the Report and Recommendation and all objections thereto
timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be
Page 2 of 2
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Petitioner’s motion to amend his original petition, ECF No. 4, is DENIED
as unnecessary, as petitioner’s amended petition, ECF No. 5, was required by court
order, ECF No. 2, and was accepted and considered by the court.
2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 6, is adopted
and incorporated by reference in this Order.
3. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction, as
petitioner has not demonstrated entitlement to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
4. The clerk is directed to close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of May, 2017.
M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case No. 5:17cv90/MCR/CJK
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?