Neal v. Allbaugh
ORDER DECLINES TO ADOPT 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ; ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell; denying 8 MOTION to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Failure to Exhaust Necessary State Remedies filed by Joe Allbaugh. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 7/11/17. (lg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ELBRYAN D. NEAL,
JOE ALLBAUGH, Director,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner filed the present action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the
constitutionality of his state court convictions. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell,
who entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on July 5, 2017. Judge Purcell
noted Petitioner appeared to be raising unexhausted claims premised on Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Because unexhausted claims cannot be pursued, Judge
Purcell recommended dismissal of Petitioner’s case. Alternatively, Judge Purcell noted
Petitioner could dismiss any unexhausted claims and proceed with his remaining claims.
On July 7, 2017, Petitioner filed a Dismissal without prejudice of his unexhausted Brady
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss his case without court
order at any time prior to the filing of an answer or motion for summary judgment; neither
has occurred here.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Brady claims are deemed DISMISSED
without prejudice as of the filing of his Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 14). As this resolves
the basis for Judge Purcell’s recommendation of dismissal, the Court declines to adopt the
R&R (Dkt. No. 13) and DENIES Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 8). This
matter is re-referred to Judge Purcell under the terms of the May 30, 2017, Order of Referral
(Dkt. No. 3).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of July, 2017.
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?