Blanton v. The State
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS dismissing without prejudice 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Eric Mitchell Blanton. Objections to R&R due by 3/10/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 2/24/17. (jlm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ERIC MITCHELL BLANTON,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Noting that Eric Mitchell Blanton had pro se filed a mishmash of
“habeas” filings on a home-brewed petition, rather than a court-supplied
28 U.S.C. § 2254 form, the Court directed him to use the court-supplied
form and answer all of its questions. Doc. 19 at 1-2. Rather than comply,
petitioner has filed a nonsensical “Durable Power of Attorney” appointing
Bill and Melinda Gates to be his attorneys-in-fact. Doc. 25. In an
accompanying “Notice of Filing,” he appears to have sent document
requests to various Georgia courts. Doc. 26.
Blanton’s petition case should be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE . See L.R. 41(b); see Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada,
432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (district courts may sua sponte
dismiss an action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) if the plaintiff fails to
comply with court rules or a court order); Donaldson v. Clark , 819 F.2d
1551, 1557 n. 6 (11th Cir. 1987) (district court has inherent authority to
sanction parties for “violations of procedural rules or court orders,” up to
and including dismissals with prejudice); McKinley v. FDIC , 2016 WL
930291 at * 2 (11th Cir. Mar. 11, 2016) (affirming this Court’s Rule 41(b)
dismissal because “(1) Plaintiff blatantly flouted the magistrate judge’s
order, (2) the order warned Plaintiff of dismissal, and (3) the district judge
dismissed without prejudice”).
Applying the Certificate of Appealability (COA) standards set forth
in Brown v. United States , 2009 WL 307872 at * 1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9,
2009), the Court discerns no COA-worthy issues at this stage of the
litigation, so no COA should issue either. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Rule
11(a) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under 28 U.S.C. §
2255 (“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability
when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.”) (emphasis added).
Any motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis therefore is moot.
This Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district
judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
this Court’s Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any party may file
written objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all
parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendations.” Any request for additional time
to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the
assigned district judge.
After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The
district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are
advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of
rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v. V.A. Leasing Corp. , 648
F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. U.S. , 612 F. App’x 542, 545
(11th Cir. 2015).
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED , this 24th day of
L1\TTED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?