THOMAS v. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 5:13-cv-126. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20151113c28
Visitors: 14
Filed: Nov. 12, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 12, 2015
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, as set forth herein. Petitioner Emmanuel Thomas ("Thomas") failed to file any Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Thomas' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, dkt. no. 1, is DISMISSED IN PART, without prejudice, based on Thomas' failure t
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, as set forth herein. Petitioner Emmanuel Thomas ("Thomas") failed to file any Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Thomas' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, dkt. no. 1, is DISMISSED IN PART, without prejudice, based on Thomas' failure to..
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, as set forth herein. Petitioner Emmanuel Thomas ("Thomas") failed to file any Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
Thomas' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, dkt. no. 1, is DISMISSED IN PART, without prejudice, based on Thomas' failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing his Petition for those claims which are cognizable under Section 2241. The remaining portions of Thomas' Petition are DISMISSED. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and D. Ray James Correctional Facility are DISMISSED as named Respondents. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this case. Should Thomas seek to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, his request shall be DENIED.1
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Because Thomas filed a Section 2241 Petition in this Court, no Certificate of Appealability ("COA") is required for purposes of an appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d 1363, 1364 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003)
Source: Leagle
