Filed: Aug. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 29, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge. On January 12, 2012, Justin Fletcher filed a Section 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1). Fletcher argues that the committee that reviewed the recommendation of his custody status failed to give meaningful consideration to specific criteria. On October 4, 2012, respondent Wendy Roal filed a response (Doc. 6) reporting that Fletcher was transferred to a halfway house on June 16, 2012 and released from confinement on Se
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge. On January 12, 2012, Justin Fletcher filed a Section 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1). Fletcher argues that the committee that reviewed the recommendation of his custody status failed to give meaningful consideration to specific criteria. On October 4, 2012, respondent Wendy Roal filed a response (Doc. 6) reporting that Fletcher was transferred to a halfway house on June 16, 2012 and released from confinement on Sep..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge.
On January 12, 2012, Justin Fletcher filed a Section 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1). Fletcher argues that the committee that reviewed the recommendation of his custody status failed to give meaningful consideration to specific criteria. On October 4, 2012, respondent Wendy Roal filed a response (Doc. 6) reporting that Fletcher was transferred to a halfway house on June 16, 2012 and released from confinement on September 13, 2012; thus his petition is moot.
On February 25, 2013, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), United States Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier submitted a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court deny Fletcher's petition for mootness.
The R&R was sent to the parties with a notice informing them of their right to appeal by way of filing "objections" by March 14, 2013. To date, none of the parties have filed objections, and the period in which to file objections has expired.1 Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court need not conduct de novo review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985).
Thus. the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (Doc. 8). The Court DENIES the petition as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
