Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lightfoot v. Mississippi, 3:17cv531-DPJ-FKB. (2018)

Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi Number: infdco20180530d70 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 02, 2018
Latest Update: May 02, 2018
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION F. KEITH BALL , Magistrate Judge . Wallace Lightfoot brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging a detainer lodged by the State of Mississippi for a probation violation. At the time of the filing of the petition, Lightfoot was incarcerated in Texas in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). In the petition, Lightfoot alleged that the Mississippi detainer was affecting the conditions of his confinement in Texas, specifically
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Wallace Lightfoot brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a detainer lodged by the State of Mississippi for a probation violation. At the time of the filing of the petition, Lightfoot was incarcerated in Texas in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). In the petition, Lightfoot alleged that the Mississippi detainer was affecting the conditions of his confinement in Texas, specifically, his access to rehabilitation programs.

Petitioner's current address as reflected on the docket sheet is the TDCJ facility in Rosharon, Texas. However, upon contacting the TDCJ, the undersigned learned that Lightfoot was paroled on March 9, 2018, and was released on the Mississippi detainer. According to the Mississippi Department of Corrections, he is currently in custody at the Rankin County Jail. Accordingly, Lightfoot's petition is now moot. For this reason, the undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed.

The parties are hereby notified that failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained within this report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996).

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