Sumrall v. Sollie

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, granting 13 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Billy Sollie, denying 9 Motion for Request to be Released filed by Derrick J. Sumrall, and denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court DISMISSES Sumralls habeas claims with prejudice and DISMISSES his claims relating to conditions of confinement without prejudice. The Court will issue a final judgment consistent with this Order. Signed by District Judge Kristi H. Johnson on 3/27/2024 (PG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
DERRICK J. SUMRALL
V.

PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-466-KHJ-MTP

BILLY SOLLIE

RESPONDENT
ORDER

Before the Court is the [15] Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United
States Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker. The Report recommends granting
Respondent Billy Sollie’s [13] Motion to Dismiss and denying pro se Petitioner
Derrick J. Sumrall’s [1] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and [9] Motion Request
to be Released. [15] at 1, 7. The Report notified the parties that failure to file
written objections within 14 days would bar further appeal in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636. [15] at 7−8.1
When no party objects to a magistrate judge’s report, the Court need not
review it de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Instead, the Court can apply the clearly
erroneous, abuse-of-discretion, and contrary-to-law standard of review. See United

States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
Sumrall seeks habeas relief, contending, among other things, “that his
confinement is unlawful due to an illegal bond revocation.” [15] at 2. Sollie “move[s]

The Magistrate Judge issued his Report on February 15, 2024. See [15] at 8. Sumrall
filed a Notice of Change of Address on March 1. [18]. So, on March 5, the Court mailed the
Report to Sumrall’s new address and allowed Sumrall another 14 days to file objections. [19].
1

to dismiss Sumrall’s petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or in the alternative, for failure to exhaust state court remedies.” Id. at 3.
The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the petition with prejudice because
Sumrall “has not stated a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief[.]” Id. at 4. As
for Sumrall’s claims relating to conditions of confinement, the Report recommends
dismissing the “claims without prejudice to Sumrall’s right to seek relief in a
separate civil action.” Id. at 7. Sumrall filed no objections to the Report, and the
time to do so has passed. The Report is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to
law. The Court therefore adopts the Report as the opinion of this Court.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent Billy Sollie’s [13] Motion to
Dismiss and DENIES Petitioner Derrick J. Sumrall’s [1] Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus and [9] Motion Request to be Released. The Court DISMISSES Sumrall’s
habeas claims with prejudice and DISMISSES his claims relating to conditions of
confinement without prejudice. The Court will issue a final judgment consistent
with this Order.
SO ORDERED, this 27th day of March, 2024.
s/ Kristi H. Johnson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2