Thomas v. Roy
Filing
71
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer's July 27, 2018 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 50 ) is ADOPTED. Petitioner DeSean Thomas's Petition (Doc. No. 1 ) is DENIED. Petitioner DeSean Thomas 039;s Motion to Enforce Writ (Doc. No. 18 ) is DENIED. Petitioner DeSean Thomas's Expedited Motion to Enter Judgment or in the Alternative Release Petitioner Until Such Judgment is Entered (Doc. No. 19 ) is DENIED. Petitioner DeSean Tho mas's Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 25 ) is DENIED. Petitioner DeSean Thomas's Motion to Stay in Abeyance (Doc. No. 29 ) is DENIED. Petitioner DeSean Thomas's Motion for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. No. 31 ) is DENIED. Petitioner DeSean T homas's Motion to Amend Name and/or Correct Clerical Error (Doc. No. 37 ) is GRANTED IN PART to direct the Clerk's Office to change the case heading to reflect Thomas's new legal name and DENIED IN PART in all other respects. Peti tioner DeSean Thomas's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. No. 42 ) is DENIED. Petitioner DeSean Thomas's Motion to Order the U.S. Marshal to Transport DeSean Lamont Thomas to USDC for Hearing on July 27, 2018 (Doc. No. 43 ) is DE NIED AS MOOT. Petitioner DeSean Thomas's Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 48 ) is DENIED. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. No certificate of appealability will be issued. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/13/2018. (las)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
DeSean Lamont Thomas,
Civil No. 17-2790 (DWF/HB)
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Tom Roy,
Respondent.
The above matter came before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of
the United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer dated July 27, 2018. (Doc. No. 50.)
No objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation in the time period
permitted. 1 The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and precisely
set forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference. Based
upon the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and all the files, records and
proceedings herein, the Court now makes and enters the following:
ORDER
1.
Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer’s July 27, 2018 Report and
Recommendation (Doc. No. [50]) is ADOPTED.
2.
1
Petitioner DeSean Thomas’s Petition (Doc. No. [1]) is DENIED.
On August 16, 2018, Thomas filed untimely objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. No. 57.) The Court has reviewed the objections and notes that
they appear to simply reargue the claims in his original Petition. Even if the Court were
to consider the untimely objections, they provide no basis for departure from the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.
3.
Petitioner DeSean Thomas’s Motion to Enforce Writ (Doc. No. [18])
is DENIED.
4.
Petitioner DeSean Thomas’s Expedited Motion to Enter Judgment or
in the Alternative Release Petitioner Until Such Judgment is Entered (Doc.
No. [19]) is DENIED.
5.
Petitioner DeSean Thomas’s Motion to Stay (Doc. No. [25]) is DENIED.
6.
Petitioner DeSean Thomas’s Motion to Stay in Abeyance (Doc.
No. [29]) is DENIED.
7.
Petitioner DeSean Thomas’s Motion for Writ of Mandamus (Doc.
No. [31]) is DENIED.
8.
Petitioner DeSean Thomas’s Motion to Amend Name and/or Correct
Clerical Error (Doc. No. [37]) is GRANTED IN PART to direct the Clerk’s
Office to change the case heading to reflect Thomas’s new legal name and
DENIED IN PART in all other respects.
9.
Petitioner DeSean Thomas’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing
(Doc. No. [42]) is DENIED.
10.
Petitioner DeSean Thomas’s Motion to Order the U.S. Marshal to
Transport DeSean Lamont Thomas to USDC for Hearing on July 27, 2018 (Doc.
No. [43]) is DENIED AS MOOT.
11.
Petitioner DeSean Thomas’s Motion to Amend (Doc. No. [48]) is
DENIED.
2
12.
This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
13.
No certificate of appealability will be issued.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: September 13, 2018
s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
3
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?