Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

HARRIS v. HASTINGS, CV214-086. (2014)

Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia Number: infdco20141023o06 Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 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 Tennyson Harris ("Harris") filed Objections. Respondent filed a Response to Harris' Objections. Harris filed a Reply. In his Objections, Harris contends that the Respondent took a different position than the Solicitor General of the United States has taken in Persaud v. United States ,
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 Tennyson Harris ("Harris") filed Objections. Respondent filed a Response to Harris' Objections. Harris filed a Reply. In his Objections, Harris contends that the Respondent took a different position than the Solicitor General of the United States has taken in Persaud v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1023 (Jan. 27, 2014) (granting petition for writ of certiorari, reversing the judgment of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and remanding to the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of the Solicitor General's position). The Fourth Circuit has remanded this case to the Western District of North Carolina, and that court has yet to rule on the merits of the government's position. (Case No. 3:12CV509) (W.D. N.C.). In addition, even if the government's position that Persaud is entitled to proceed with his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition because he satisfies the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) is adopted in the North Carolina court, Persaud is applicable to cases arising from the Fourth Circuit. Based on binding Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' decisions, Harris is not entitled to his requested relief at this time because he has failed to satisfy § 2255(e).

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, as supplemented herein, is adopted as the opinion of the Court. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Harris' petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer