Hernandez v. Martin

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 15 . Petitioner' s Petition 1 for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Amended Petition 4 for Writ of Habeas Corpus are dismissed with prejudice regarding the jurisdictional issue and dismissed without prejudice regarding all other issues. Respondent' s Motion 10 for Change of Venue is DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on October 16, 2013. (lda)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WESTERN DIVISION JESUS ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, #08996-032 vs. PETITIONER CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13cv19-DCB-MTP M. MARTIN, WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, YAZOO CITY, MISSISSIPPI RESPONDENT ORDER This cause came on this date to be heard upon the Report and Recommendation [docket entry 15] of the United States Magistrate Judge, after referral of hearing by this Court, and the Court, having fully reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge entered in this cause, and being duly advised in the premises, finds that said Report and Recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of this Court. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker be, and the same is hereby, adopted as the finding of this Court, and that Petitioner Jesus Antonio Hernandez’s Petition [1] for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Amended Petition [4] for Writ of Habeas Corpus are dismissed with prejudice regarding the jurisdictional issue and dismissed without prejudice regarding all other issues; FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent M. Martin’s Motion [10] for Change of Venue is DENIED as moot. A separate judgment will be entered herein in accordance with this Order as required by Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SO ORDERED, this the 16th day of October, 2013. s/David Bramlette UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?