Duckworth v. Goff
ORDER denying Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Amended Brief in Support of Habeas Petition 27 ; adopting Report and Recommendations 31 . Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 8/9/2012. (Brown, T.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11cv1HSO-JMR
ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HABEAS CORPUS PETITION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Elnorsh Duckworth’s
[“Duckworth”] Objections  to the Report and Recommendations of Chief United
States Magistrate Judge John M. Roper  entered in this cause on April 26, 2012.
Respondent filed a Notice  of Intention Not to File Formal Response to
Petitioner’s Objection on May 11, 2012.1
Because an Objection has been filed to the Magistrate’s Report and
Recommendations , this Court is required to “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); see also Rule 8(b) of RULES
GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS; Longmire
v. Gust, 921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991)(party is “entitled to a de novo review by
On January 17, 2012, Respondent Preston Goff filed a Response  in
Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Brief in Support of
Habeas Corpus Petition .
an Article III Judge as to those issues to which an objection is made”). The Court is
not required, however, to reiterate the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate
Judge, Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993), nor need it consider
objections which are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature, Battle v. United
States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
Duckworth requests that the Certificate of Appealability  be held in
abeyance, that deference be given to his pro se status, and that this Court retain
jurisdiction until such time as it has ruled on his Rule 60(b) Motion. Obj. , at p.
4. In further support of his argument, Duckworth has attached his previously filed
Objections [33 1-3, 13] as Exhibits to the his latest Objection. These Objections 
were submitted in response to the Report and Recommendations  entered by the
Magistrate Judge on June 13, 2011. Therefore, they were previously considered by
this Court. On August 9, 2012, the Court entered an Order  denying
Duckworth’s Motion for Relief from Final Judgment pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
60(b). Thus, the relief requested by Duckworth here, to amend his Petition, has
been rendered moot.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendations are well reasoned, and that they correctly find the applicable
facts and apply the governing legal standards.
For the reasons stated herein, after thoroughly reviewing the findings in the
Report and Recommendations, in addition to the positions advanced in Duckworth’s
Objection , and the relevant legal authorities, the Court finds that Duckworth’s
Objection should be overruled, the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations 
entered on April 26, 2012, should be adopted as the findings of the Court, and
Duckworth’s Motion  for Leave to File an Amended Brief in Support of Habeas
Corpus Petition should be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Duckworth’s
Objection  to the Report and Recommendations filed in this cause on May 10,
2012, is OVERRULED.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Report and
Recommendations  of Chief Magistrate Judge John M. Roper entered on April
26, 2012, are adopted as the finding of this Court.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Petitioner’s Motion
for Leave to File an Amended Brief in Support of Habeas Corpus Petition  is
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 9th day of August, 2012.
s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?