Craig v. Mississippi Dept. of Corrections

Filing 30

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 29 Report and Recommendations.; granting 18 Motion to Dismiss; denying 21 Motion for Consideration of Equitable Tolling; denying 24 Motion for Order to Show Cause; denying 27 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 8/24/2017. (JCH)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HENRY LEE CRAIG, #76582
v.

PETITIONER
CAUSE NO. 1:16cv371-LG-FKB

J. BRADLEY, WARDEN
and G. WALKER, WARDEN

RESPONDENTS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING ACTION
This cause comes before the Court on the [29] Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball with respect to (1) Respondent
Mississippi Department of Corrections’ Motion to Dismiss [18]1 filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d), to which Petitioner Craig has responded; (2) Craig’s Motion for
Consideration of Equitable Tolling [21]; (3) Craig’s Motion for Order to Show Cause
[24]; and (4) Craig’s Motion to Vacate Judgment [27]. For the reasons discussed
herein, the Court is of the opinion that this action should be dismissed with
prejudice.
On August 4, 2017, Magistrate Judge Ball recommended that this Court
grant the Motion to Dismiss and dismiss the action with prejudice because Craig’s
Petition is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244. He also recommended that this Court
deny Craig’s Motions because Craig has failed to show, inter alia, that he is entitled
to statutory or equitable tolling of the federal statute of limitations.

1

Per Court Order [8], filed on December 29, 2016, the Defendant Mississippi
Department of Corrections was replaced with Warden J. Bradley and Warden G.
Walker. (See Order 1, ECF No. 8).

Craig has not timely objected to any aspect of the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation. Where no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. See
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 need only review the Report and
Recommendation and determine whether it is either clearly erroneous or contrary
to law. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
Having conducted the required review, the Court is of the opinion that
Magistrate Judge Ball’s Report and Recommendation is neither clearly erroneous
nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court finds that the [29] Report and
Recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of this Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [29] Report
and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball should be,
and hereby is, adopted as the opinion of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [18] Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED and the [21] Motion for Consideration of Equitable Tolling,
[24] Motion for Order to Show Cause, and [27] Motion to Vacate Judgment are
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner Craig’s
petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A separate Final Judgment will be
entered.
2

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 24th day of August, 2017.

s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

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

3