CAMP v. STATE, 11-2978. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20120417a31
Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2012
Summary: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION LOUIS MOORE, Jr., Magistrate Judge. This court, on March 22, 2012, determined that the petition for habeas corpus filed by Landis Camp was subject to dismissal without prejudice due to Camp's failure to exhaust his state court remedies. (Fed. rec., doc. 14). Accordingly; RECOMMENDATION It is hereby RECOMMENDED that Camp's Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence (fed. rec., doc. 12) and Motion to Amend/Correct Illegal Sentence (fed. rec., doc. 13) be
Summary: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION LOUIS MOORE, Jr., Magistrate Judge. This court, on March 22, 2012, determined that the petition for habeas corpus filed by Landis Camp was subject to dismissal without prejudice due to Camp's failure to exhaust his state court remedies. (Fed. rec., doc. 14). Accordingly; RECOMMENDATION It is hereby RECOMMENDED that Camp's Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence (fed. rec., doc. 12) and Motion to Amend/Correct Illegal Sentence (fed. rec., doc. 13) be D..
More
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
LOUIS MOORE, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
This court, on March 22, 2012, determined that the petition for habeas corpus filed by Landis Camp was subject to dismissal without prejudice due to Camp's failure to exhaust his state court remedies. (Fed. rec., doc. 14). Accordingly;
RECOMMENDATION
It is hereby RECOMMENDED that Camp's Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence (fed. rec., doc. 12) and Motion to Amend/Correct Illegal Sentence (fed. rec., doc. 13) be DISMISSED as moot.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).1
FootNotes
1. Douglass referenced the previously applicable ten-day period for the filing of objections. Effective December 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) was amended to extend that period to fourteen days.
Source: Leagle
