Martin v. Scott Young, Warden

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 3 Report and Recommendations and Overruling Objections. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 5/31/2013. (sm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
ROBERT L. MARTIN, JR.

§

VS.

§

SCOTT YOUNG, WARDEN

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-31

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, Robert L. Martin, Jr., a federal prisoner confined at FCI Texarkana, proceeding
pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Caroline Craven, United States
Magistrate Judge, at Texarkana, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders
of this Court. The Magistrate Judge recommends the petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, and pleadings. Petitioner
filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo
review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and applicable law. See FED . R. CIV . P.
72(b).
After careful consideration, the Court finds the objections lacking in merit. Plaintiff
concedes in his objections his first two attempts to file a Central Office appeal were rejected, as
petitioner failed to comply with the administrative requirements, and his third attempt was
rejected as untimely. Administrative remedies must be fully exhausted in a procedurally correct
manner. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006). “Proper
exhaustion requires compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules . . .
.” Id. Although petitioner now argues the futility exception should apply in this case, petitioner
has simply failed in meeting his burden to show that extraordinary circumstances exist to excuse

his failure to properly exhaust. Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994). Further, the fact
that petitioner believes his grievance would simply be denied by the Central Office
Administrative Remedy Coordinator because the Warden and Regional Director already denied
his appeal does not make the remedy futile. See Green v. Meese, 875 F.2d 639, 641 (7th Cir.
1989) (“No doubt that denial is the likeliest outcome, but that is not a sufficient reason for
waiving the requirement of exhaustion.”).
.

ORDER

Accordingly, the objections of petitioner are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is
ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendations.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 31st day of May, 2013.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2