Glidden v. Sparkman et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION denying 9 Motion ; denying 10 Motion, denying 10 Motion to Consolidate Cases; adopting Report and Recommendations re 15 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 7/3/2012 (wld)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GARY ALLEN GLIDDEN #145432
v.

PETITIONER
CAUSE NO. 1:12CV62 LG-JMR

E.L. SPARKMAN, ET AL.

RESPONDENTS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This cause comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [15] of
Chief United States Magistrate Judge John M. Roper entered in this cause on May
31, 2012. Magistrate Judge Roper reviewed Glidden’s Motions for Bond and to
consolidate motions. He found the motion to consolidate moot. As for the motion for
bond, he reviewed the applicable law and found that there are no extraordinary
circumstances presented by Glidden’s incarceration to necessitate the granting of bail
while his federal habeas corpus petition is under review. Accordingly, he
recommended that the motion for bond be denied.
Glidden agreed with Magistrate Judge Roper’s finding that the motion to
consolidate was moot, but objected to the recommendation on the motion for bond.
When any party objects to a Report and Recommendation, the Court must review it de
novo. See Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 646 (5th Cir.
1994); Longmire v. Guste, 921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991). Such a review means
that the Court will examine the record and make an independent assessment of the
law. The Court need not, however, conduct a de novo review when the objections are
frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n,
834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).

In his response to the Report and Recommendation, Glidden reasserts his
arguments regarding the unlawfulness of his incarceration, asking the Court to
review the documents he previously presented in support of his request for “release on
his own personal recognizance in the interests of justice.” (Pet. Resp. 3, ECF No. 17).
He offers neither any new argument to support his original motion nor any evidence
to establish that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions were incorrect.
Therefore, a de novo review of Glidden’s objections is unnecessary. Instead, the
Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds it is neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.
1989). It will therefore be adopted as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and
Recommendation [15] of Chief United States Magistrate Judge John M. Roper
entered in this cause on May 31, 2012, should be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED
as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s Motion for
Bond [9] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s Motion to
consolidate [10] is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 3rd day of July, 2012.
s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-