Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING 19 Report and Recommendations; DENYING 1 Motion for Writ of Mandamus and GRANTING 15 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 2/7/2014. (tlh)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION CLEVELAND HANKERSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-78 (MTT) ORDER This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle’s Recommendation (Doc. 19) on the Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 15). The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the Petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus (Doc. 1) because he has no right to the requested relief under either the Freedom of Information Act or the Privacy Act, the Defendant has no clear duty to act, and the Petitioner cannot show that no other adequate remedy is available. The Petitioner has objected to the Recommendation (Doc. 20), contending the Magistrate Judge misconstrued his request. The Court has thoroughly considered the Petitioner’s objection and has made a de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which the Petitioner objects. The Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation is ADOPTED and made the order of this Court. Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) is GRANTED, and the petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED, this 7th day of February, 2014. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE 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?