Gomez v. Nash
Filing
12
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 10 Report and Recommendations. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation 10 of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball as the opinion of the Court. Gomez's habeas petition is dismissed. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 4/30/2019 (VM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
ENRIQUE VILLA GOMEZ
V.
PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-237-DPJ-FKB
WARDEN CHERON
RESPONDENT
ORDER
This habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is before the Court on the unopposed
Report and Recommendation [10] of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Judge Ball
recommended that Petitioner Enrique Villa Gomez’s petition regarding the Federal Bureau of
Prisons’ calculation of his sentence be dismissed as moot because Gomez was released from
custody on July 9, 2018. Report & Recommendation [10]; see Pet’r’s Mem. [2] at 4 (seeking
“Credit For Time Served”); Belasco v. Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst. Big Spring, 156 F. App’x 671
(5th Cir. 2005) (finding appeal from dismissal of § 2241 petition “challenging the method used
by the Bureau of Prisons . . . for calculating good-time credits” moot upon petitioner’s release
from federal custody). Gomez failed to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation,
and the time to do so has now expired.1
Because the Court agrees with Judge Ball that Gomez’s habeas petition is now moot, it
adopts the Report and Recommendation [10] as the opinion of the Court. Gomez’s habeas
petition is dismissed. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 30th day of April, 2019.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
The copy of the Report and Recommendation the Court mailed to Gomez was returned as
undeliverable. Notice [11].
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?