Adan v. Toole
Filing
12
OPINION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Janet F. King's Final Report and Recommendation 10 is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Saleeban Adan's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 4 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 10/7/2015. (anc)
January 22, 2015, Petitioner filed his first Application for Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis [3] (“First Application”). On February 5, 2015, Petitioner filed
his Amended Petitioner.
On February 11, 2015, the Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner had
sufficient financial means to pay the $5.00 filing fee, denied Petitioner’s First
Application, and ordered Petitioner to pay the filing fee. (February 11, 2015,
Order, [5] at 1-2). On February 27, 2015, Petitioner filed his second Application
for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [6] (“Second Application”). On
March 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner had sufficient financial
means to pay the $5.00 filing fee, denied Petitioner’s Second Application, and
ordered Petitioner to pay the filing fee. (March 18, 2015, Order, [7] at 1-2).
On May 4, 2015, the Magistrate Judge ordered Petitioner, within fifteen (15)
days, to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure
to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s February 11, 2015, and March 18, 2015,
Orders. (May 4, 2015, Order, [9] at 1). Petitioner did not respond to the
Magistrate Judge’s May 4, 2015, Order, and did not pay the $5.00 filing fee.
On June 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss
Petitioner’s Petition without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to comply with the
2
Magistrate Judge’s Orders. (R&R at 1). Petitioner did not file any objections to
the R&R.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S.
1112 (1983). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With respect to those findings and
recommendations to which objections have not been asserted, the Court must
conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093,
1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984). Petitioner did not
object to the R&R and the Court thus reviews it for plain error.
B.
Analysis
The Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner failed to comply with the
February 11, 2015, March 18, 2015, and May 4, 2015, Orders, and properly
recommended that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s Petition. See LR 41.3(A)(2),
3
NDGa. The Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendation. See Slay, 714 F.2d at 1095.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Janet F. King’s Final
Report and Recommendation [10] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Saleeban Adan’s Amended
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [4] is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED this 7th day of October, 2015.
_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?