WASHINGTON v. HASTINGS, CV213-112. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20140812a57
Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 11, 2014
Summary: ORDER LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge. After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Petitioner William Washington, Jr., ("Washington"), filed Objections. In his Objections, Washington notes the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Washington failed to exhaust his state court remedies prior to filing this cause of action, yet Washington voices nothing to refute this conclusion. Inste
Summary: ORDER LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge. After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Petitioner William Washington, Jr., ("Washington"), filed Objections. In his Objections, Washington notes the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Washington failed to exhaust his state court remedies prior to filing this cause of action, yet Washington voices nothing to refute this conclusion. Instea..
More
ORDER
LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge.
After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Petitioner William Washington, Jr., ("Washington"), filed Objections. In his Objections, Washington notes the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Washington failed to exhaust his state court remedies prior to filing this cause of action, yet Washington voices nothing to refute this conclusion. Instead, Washington asserts that this Court cannot allow him to serve his sentence in installments, which will be the result if the Court does not reach the merits of his case. As the Magistrate Judge informed Washington, his failure to exhaust his state court remedies prior to filing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition— which falls within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 2254—renders this Court without jurisdiction to entertain Washington's petition.
Washington's Objections are overruled. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court. Washington's petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on Washington's failure to exhaust his state court remedies prior to filing his petition. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
