Daker v. Allen, 6:17-cv-23. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20190807943
Visitors: 20
Filed: Aug. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2019
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, doc. 196. Respondent did not file Objections to the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. The Court DENIES Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and reminds Respondent of his obligation to file his answer-response to Pe
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, doc. 196. Respondent did not file Objections to the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. The Court DENIES Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and reminds Respondent of his obligation to file his answer-response to Pet..
More
ORDER
J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.
After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, doc. 196. Respondent did not file Objections to the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. The Court DENIES Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and reminds Respondent of his obligation to file his answer-response to Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition within 14 days of this Order.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
