Corring v. State of Mississippi
Filing
12
ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 10 Report and Recommendations, in its entirety as the finding of this Court; and dismissing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and this civil action with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 8/19/13. (RLW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL CORRING
VERSUS
PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-cv-97-HSO-RHW
RONALD KING
RESPONDENT
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PROPOSED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
This matter comes before the Court on the Proposed Findings of Fact and
Recommendation [10] of United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker, entered
in this case on July 17, 2013, and the Motion to Dismiss [8] filed by Respondent
Ronald King on May 3, 2013. Petitioner filed a Response [9] to the Motion on May
23, 2013. The Magistrate Judge reviewed Petitioner Daniel Corring’s Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus [1] filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Respondent’s Motion
to Dismiss [8], and Petitioner’s Response [9], and determined that the Motion to
Dismiss [8] should be granted. Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation
[10], at p. 5. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus [1] be denied as procedurally barred. Id.
The Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation [10] were mailed to
Petitioner on July 17, 2013, via certified mail return receipt requested. An
acknowledgment of receipt [11] signed by Petitioner, while not dated, was received
by the Clerk of Court and filed into the record on July 23, 2013. Petitioner
therefore received a copy of this document on or before that date. Any objection to
the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation [10] was
due within fourteen (14) days of service. L.U. Civ. R. 72(a)(3). To date, Petitioner
has not filed any objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings of Fact and
Recommendation [10].
Where no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (“a judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions
of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection
is made”). In such cases, the Court applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse of
discretion and contrary to law” standard of review. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d
1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
Having conducted the required review, the Court concludes that the
Magistrate Judge’s findings are not clearly erroneous, nor are they an abuse of
discretion or contrary to law. For the foregoing reasons, the Court will adopt the
Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation [10] as the
opinion of this Court. Petitioner Daniel Corring’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [1] filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should be denied, and this civil action
will be dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Proposed
Findings of Fact and Recommendation [10] of Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker,
entered on July 17, 2013, is adopted in its entirety as the finding of this Court.
-2-
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Motion to
Dismiss [8] filed by Respondent Ronald King on May 3, 2013, is GRANTED.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Petitioner Daniel
Corring’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1], filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
is DENIED, and this civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A separate
judgment in accordance with this Order will be entered, as required by Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 19th day of August, 2013.
s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
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?