Boyd v. Nash

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 14 Report and Recommendations, 10 Motion to Dismiss,, filed by Unknown Nash. Dismissing with Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 5/25/17 (MGB)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION ROBERT DESHAWN BOYD PETITIONER V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16cv945-DPJ-FKB WARDEN NASH RESPONDENT ORDER This habeas petition is before the Court on the Report and Recommendations [14] of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball, recommending dismissal. Petitioner filed this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging a detainer lodged by the Kentucky Parole Board. Respondent then moved to dismiss the petition [10]. Judge Ball concluded that the instant petition constitutes an abuse of writ, given that Petitioner challenged the legality of the detainer at issue here in a habeas proceeding in federal court in Kentucky. The Kentucky District Court dismissed that petition with prejudice, and Petitioner “has made no showing of cause and prejudice or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will result if his petition is not entertained by this court.” R&R [14] at 4. Judge Ball therefore recommended dismissal with prejudice here. Petitioner was given fourteen days to object. He failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendations, and the time to do so expired on May 15, 2017. The Court finds that the unopposed Report and Recommendations [14] should be adopted as the opinion of the Court. Respondent’s motion [10] is granted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 25th day of May, 2017. s/ Daniel P. Jordan III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?