Pledger v. Anderson
ORDER adopting 9 Report and Recommendations; denying 2 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; petition dismissed without prejudice. (Schroeppel, Kerry)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION WILLIAM PLEDGER, III, Petitioner, v. MARTY C. ANDERSON, Warden, United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action ) No. 09-3006-CV-S-RED-H ) ) ) ) )
ORDER AND JUDGMENT Pursuant to the governing law and in accordance with Local Rule 72.1 of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, the petition herein for a writ of habeas corpus was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The United States Magistrate Judge has completed his preliminary review of the petition and has submitted to the undersigned a report and recommendation that the petition be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner has filed exceptions to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, in which he again challenges the validity of his commitment under 18 U.S.C. §4246. The record establishes that this commitment was ordered by the Eastern District of Arkansas in January of 2004. That Court is in the best position to evaluate the merits of petitioner's argument that this order was invalid. See Archuleta v. Hedrick, 365 F.3d 644, 649 (8th Cir. 2004). Petitioner's exceptions must therefore be overruled. It is
ORDERED that petitioner be, and he is hereby, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis; it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the petition filed herein be dismissed without prejudice.
/s/ Richard E. Dorr RICHARD E. DORR United States District Judge Date: June 4, 2010
The respondent seeks dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In view of the ruling herein, that issue is not addressed, but see Perkins v. Hedrick, 340 F.3d 582 (8 th Cir. 2003)
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?