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)

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