Dickerson v. Nash

Filing 27

ORDER. The Court conducted a de novo review of Petitioner's objection to the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [ECF No. 26], which the Court received subsequent to adopting the R&R and filing a Final Judgment. Petitioner's objection is overruled and the Court affirms its adoption of Magistrate Judge Andersons Report and Recommendation and the Final Judgment entered on March 27, 2020. Signed by District Judge David C. Bramlette, III on 07/08/2020 (sl)

Case 3:17-cv-00779-DCB-LRA Document 27 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM D. DICKERSON
v.

PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-cv-779-DCB-LRA

WARDEN CHERON NASH

RESPONDENT
ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner William D. Dickerson’s
Objection to Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”). [ECF No. 26]. On March 5, 2020,
Magistrate Judge Anderson filed her R&R. [ECF No. 23]. On March
27, 2020, this Court entered an Order Adopting the R&R and a
Final Judgment was entered of even date herewith. Three days
after the Final Judgment was entered, on March 30, 2020, the
Petitioner filed his objection to the R&R.
Petitioner asserts that he received a copy of Magistrate
Judge Anderson’s R&R on March 12, 2020 and that he had until
March 26, 2020, i.e., fourteen days after physically receiving
the R&R, to file any objections. Petitioner claims that he
mailed his objection on March 26, 2020. Pro se prisoners’
filings are governed by the mailbox rule, thus they are deemed
filed as of the date the petitioner deposits them in the prison
mail system, not the date they were received by the district
court clerk. See Cooper v. Brookshire, 70 F.3d 377, 379 (5th
Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the petitioner’s objection was timely
1

Case 3:17-cv-00779-DCB-LRA Document 27 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 3

under the prisoner mailbox rule. Therefore, the Court will
review petitioner’s objections to Magistrate Judge Anderson’s
R&R.
When a party objects to a R&R, this Court is required to
“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Longmire v.
Guste, 921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991). “Parties filing
objections must specifically identify those findings objected
to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be
considered by the district court.” Allen v. Outlaw, No. 5:14-cv60-DCB-MTP, 2015 WL 4759268, at * 2 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 12, 2015).
Moreover, “no factual objection is raised when a petitioner
merely reurges arguments contained in the original petition.”
Hinton v. Pike County, No. 18-60817, 2018 WL 3142942, at *1
(S.D. Miss. June 27, 2018).
In his objection, petitioner re-asserts that he may proceed
with his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255(e)’s savings clause. Petitioner merely reurges the
arguments of his original petition and his reply to the
Government’s response in opposition. Having conducted a de novo
review of the portions of the R&R objected to, and having
reviewed the remainder for plain error and finding none, the

2

Case 3:17-cv-00779-DCB-LRA Document 27 Filed 07/08/20 Page 3 of 3

Court is satisfied that Magistrate Judge Anderson has undertaken
an extensive examination of the issues in this case and has
issued a thorough opinion which the Court has adopted.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s objection is OVERRULED and the
Court affirms its adoption of Magistrate Judge Anderson’s Report
and Recommendation and the Final Judgment entered on March 27,
2020.
SO ORDERED, this the 8th day of July, 2020.

___/s/ David Bramlette_______
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3