Stout v. Young et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying 7 Motion for immediate release; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a final judgment on his habeas will be deferred until the time for filing objections to the R&R has lapsed and a de novo review has been conducted by this court Signed by Judge Patricia Minaldi on 6/26/09. (crt,Davis, C)

RECEIVED
IN LAKE CHARLES. LA

JUL -22009
TOW( R. MOORE, C%.ERK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN RE: PETITIONER, EVERETT LEON STOUT VS. JOE P. YOUNG, ET AL.

: : :

DOCKET NO. 2:09 CV 0781 JUDGE MINALDI MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the court is the petitioner's "Notice of Violations of 28 U.S.C. §2243t1 [doe. 7] in which the petitioner, Everett Leon Stout ("Stout") seeks immediate release. Stout filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 29

u.s.c §2241' on

May 13, 2009. This petition was

reviewed by the Magistrate Judge and a Report and Recommendation was issued on June 17, 2009. The time for the petitioner to lodge objections to the ruling of the court has not yet lapsed. In the interim, Stout is arguing that the Magistrate Judge does not have authority to review the habeas petition. Aj udge may designate a United States magistrate to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, and this delegation does not violate article III of the Constitution so long as the district court ultimately decides the referred matter. §636(b)(1); CJS USMAG 28 U.S.C.

§

9; Ford v. Estelle, 740 F.2d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 1984); Zinberg v.

Washington Bancorp, Inc., 138 F.R.D. 397 (D.N.J. 1990). The petitioner makes a demand for immediate release. Immediate release is the ultimate Considering the substance of the petition, this was considered by the Magistrate Judge as an action pursuant to §2255.

purpose of the habeas petition. There is no basis in law or fact, however, for immediate release pending a final judgment on his habeas claim. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner's motion for immediate release pending a ruling on his habeas petition is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a final judgment on his habeas will be deferred until the time for filing objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation has lapsed and a de nova review has been conducted by this court. Lake Charles, Louisiana, this
c7L~ day

of June, 2009.

A4AtZI~/~
`IWERJCIA MINALDI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2