CURTIS v. GIBSON, 5:14-cv-00090-KGB-JJV. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20140801k56
Visitors: 24
Filed: Aug. 01, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2014
Summary: ORDER KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge. The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 30) and plaintiff Demetrius Curtis's objections (Dkt. No. 31). After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects
Summary: ORDER KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge. The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 30) and plaintiff Demetrius Curtis's objections (Dkt. No. 31). After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects...
More
ORDER
KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 30) and plaintiff Demetrius Curtis's objections (Dkt. No. 31). After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. It is therefore ordered that Mr. Curtis's motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
The Court writes separately to address Mr. Curtis's objections. He argues that he has exhausted his state remedies and that this Court may consider his request for what is habeas relief because he recently filed a writ of habeas corpus in state court. However, to have exhausted his state remedies, Mr. Curtis must have sought and been denied relief in the state courts, including in the appropriate state appellate courts. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 477 (1973); see Turnage v. Fabian, 606 F.3d 933, 936 (8th Cir. 2010). This requirement provides states the opportunity to review and correct alleged violations of a petitioner's federal rights. Turnage, 606 F.3d at 936. Mr. Curtis has not been denied relief in the state courts.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
