Jordan v. Ballard
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; granting as more fully set forth herein respondent's 6 MOTION to Stay. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 11/1/2013. (cc: attys; petitioner, magistrate judge) (tmr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
DANIEL LEE JORDAN,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 2:13-06864
DAVID BALLARD, Warden,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The court having received the Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (“PF&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge
filed on August 5, 2013, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B); and having reviewed the record in this
proceeding; and there being no objections filed by either the
respondent or the petitioner to the PF&R; and it appearing
proper so to do, it is ORDERED that the findings and conclusions
made in the PF&R be, and they hereby are, adopted by the court.
It is, accordingly, ORDERED as follows respecting the
pending section 2254 petition:
1.
That the respondent’s motion to stay proceedings be,
and hereby is, granted;
2.
That the section 2254 petition be, and hereby is, held
in abeyance pending the petitioner’s exhaustion of the
available state remedies;
3.
That this action be, and hereby is, retired to the
inactive docket pending the further order of the
court; and
4.
That the petitioner be, and hereby is, directed to
notify the court and the respondent whether he intends
to proceed with this matter within 30 days of the
resolution of his state habeas appeal and, in that
event, to file an amended section 2254 petition within
that same time frame if he seeks to include any of the
newly exhausted grounds for relief.
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this
written opinion and order to the petitioner, all counsel of
record, and the magistrate judge.
DATED: November 1, 2013
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
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?