Hodge v. Thompson

Filing 15

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 14 Report and Recommendations.Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 7/29/11 (wks)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION SEDRICK JEROME HODGE, : : Petitioner, : : v. : : DANNIE THOMPSON, : : Respondent. : ____________________________________: CASE NO.: 1:10-cv-113 (WLS) ORDER Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff, filed April 20, 2011. (Doc. 14). It is recommended that Petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (see Doc. 3), be dismissed pursuant to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss as Untimely and/or for Lack of Exhaustion (Doc. 10). (Doc. 14 at 1, 2). The Report and Recommendation provided the Parties with fourteen days1 from the date of its service to file written objections to the recommendations therein. (Doc. 14 at 2). The period for filing objections expired on Monday, May 9, 2011, and no objections have been filed to date.2 (See Docket). In view of the absence of any objections from the record of this case and the Court’s consideration of the record as a whole, United States Magistrate Judge Langstaff’s April 20, 2011 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein. Accordingly, The Parties were given an additional three days because service was made by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (adding three days to specified period within which a party may act if service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C) by mailing process to a party’s last known address). 2 Because the actual deadline for filing objections—Saturday, May 7, 2011—fell on a legal holiday, the deadline was extended to Monday, May 9, 2011. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). 1 1 Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) is GRANTED, and Petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 3), is DISMISSED. The Court further DENIES Petitioner a certificate of appealability, as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). SO ORDERED, this 29th day of July 2011. /s/ W. Louis Sands THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?