MARTIN v. MOSLEY, 3:14cv958-DPJ-FKB. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20151015a92
Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER DANIEL P. JORDAN, III , District Judge . This cause came on this date to be heard upon the Report and Recommendation [10] of the United States Magistrate Judge. Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball recommended denial of Martin's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. The Court, having fully reviewed the unopposed 1 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge entered in this cause, and being duly advised in the premises, finds that said Report a
Summary: ORDER DANIEL P. JORDAN, III , District Judge . This cause came on this date to be heard upon the Report and Recommendation [10] of the United States Magistrate Judge. Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball recommended denial of Martin's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. The Court, having fully reviewed the unopposed 1 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge entered in this cause, and being duly advised in the premises, finds that said Report an..
More
ORDER
DANIEL P. JORDAN, III, District Judge.
This cause came on this date to be heard upon the Report and Recommendation [10] of the United States Magistrate Judge. Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball recommended denial of Martin's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court, having fully reviewed the unopposed1 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge entered in this cause, and being duly advised in the premises, finds that said Report and Recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of this Court.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball be, and the same is hereby, adopted as the finding of this Court. Plaintiff's claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff did not object to the Report and Recommendation mailed on September 23, 2015. On October 13, 2015, the Report and Recommendation was returned as undeliverable. Letter [11] at 1. Plaintiff was aware that "failure to advise this Court of a change of address . . . may result in the dismissal of [the] case." Not. of Assignment [1-1].
Source: Leagle
