Walters v. Fisher et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 13 Report and Recommendations, denying 11 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Christopher W. Walters, granting 9 Motion to Dismiss,, filed by Jay Malloy, Marshall Fisher, Jeworski Mallett, Gia McLoud, Alisha Box Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 5/19/2017 (Copy mailed to plaintiff) (cwl)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER W. WALTERS v. PLAINTIFF CAUSE NO. 3:16cv711-LG-FKB COMMISSIONER MARSHALL FISHER DEFENDANT ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This cause comes before the Court on the [13] Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball with respect to Plaintiff Walters’ petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Defendant Fisher filed his [9] Motion to Dismiss the petition based on Walters’ failure to exhaust his state remedies. Walters then filed his [11] Motion to Answer, which Magistrate Judge Ball construed as a response to the Motion to Dismiss. On May 1, 2017, Judge Ball recommended that this Court grant the Motion to Dismiss because Walters did not exhaust his state remedies. Plaintiff Walters 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 [13] Report and Recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of this Court. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [9] Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the [11] Motion to Answer is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Walters’ petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A separate Final Judgment will be entered. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 19th day of May, 2017. s/ Louis Guirola, Jr. LOUIS GUIROLA, JR. CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?