Filed: Oct. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 09, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA , District Judge . On May 21, 2019, the previously assigned magistrate judge entered a report in which he recommended that the Court deny petition Amber Scarffol's 2241 habeas petition because Ms. Scarffol did not exhaust administrative remedies before she filed her petition, and those administrative remedies no longer are available to Ms. Scarffol. (Doc. 15). Judge Putnam advised the parties of their right to file specific written objections wi
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA , District Judge . On May 21, 2019, the previously assigned magistrate judge entered a report in which he recommended that the Court deny petition Amber Scarffol's 2241 habeas petition because Ms. Scarffol did not exhaust administrative remedies before she filed her petition, and those administrative remedies no longer are available to Ms. Scarffol. (Doc. 15). Judge Putnam advised the parties of their right to file specific written objections wit..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, District Judge.
On May 21, 2019, the previously assigned magistrate judge entered a report in which he recommended that the Court deny petition Amber Scarffol's § 2241 habeas petition because Ms. Scarffol did not exhaust administrative remedies before she filed her petition, and those administrative remedies no longer are available to Ms. Scarffol. (Doc. 15). Judge Putnam advised the parties of their right to file specific written objections within 14 days. (Doc. 15). The Court has not received objections to the report.
A district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Having reviewed and considered the relevant materials in the record, the Court adopts the magistrate judge's report and accepts his recommendation. Accordingly, the Court will deny Ms. Scarffol's petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismiss this action with prejudice because those remedies are not available now to Ms. Scarffol.1
A separate order will be entered.
