ROBINSON v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 3:14CV921 DPJ-FKB. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20150508d04
Visitors: 7
Filed: May 07, 2015
Latest Update: May 07, 2015
Summary: ORDER DANIEL P. JORDAN, III , District Judge . This action for a writ of federal habeas corpus is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [9] of Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Judge Ball recommended granting Respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss [8]. Robinson has not filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has now passed. In addition, the Court notes that the docket reflects that the Report and Recommendation was returned as undeliverable [10
Summary: ORDER DANIEL P. JORDAN, III , District Judge . This action for a writ of federal habeas corpus is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [9] of Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Judge Ball recommended granting Respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss [8]. Robinson has not filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has now passed. In addition, the Court notes that the docket reflects that the Report and Recommendation was returned as undeliverable [10]..
More
ORDER
DANIEL P. JORDAN, III, District Judge.
This action for a writ of federal habeas corpus is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [9] of Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Judge Ball recommended granting Respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss [8]. Robinson has not filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has now passed. In addition, the Court notes that the docket reflects that the Report and Recommendation was returned as undeliverable [10], indicating that Robinson has failed to keep the Court informed of his current address.
The Court therefore adopts the unopposed Report and Recommendation [9] in its entirety. Respondent's motion to dismiss [8] is granted. For the reasons explained by Judge Ball, Robinson's claims regarding his federal incarceration are considered moot, and his claims challenging the state parole revocation are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust his state remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
Source: Leagle
