F. KEITH BALL, Magistrate Judge.
Calvin Troy May was indicted in the Circuit Court of Yazoo County, Mississippi, on charges of burglary (Count I), aggravated assault (County II), domestic violence (Count III), sexual battery (Count IV), and kidnapping (Counts V and VI). He filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was a pretrial detainee in the Yazoo County Regional Correctional Facility (YCRCF), asking for dismissal of the charges and release. On March 25, 2019, the Court ordered May to state whether he desired to file a petition for habeas relief and voluntarily dismiss his § 1983 action. [5]. Thereafter, May submitted a petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the action was converted to a § 2241 petition, and the proper respondent was substituted. [6], [9].
In his petition, May requests dismissal of the pending charges and release from detention. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim. Furthermore, a recent supplement to the motion filed by Respondent indicates that on December 6, 2019, May entered a guilty plea to all charges except the two counts for kidnapping, which were dismissed. [17]. A sentencing order was entered that same day. [17-3] at 1.
May's requests that the charges be dismissed and that he be released from the custody of YCRCF are clearly moot, as no charges are now pending, and he is no longer at YCRCF. To the extent that May's petition were construed as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, it would likewise be subject to dismissal, as he has not yet exhausted his state remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). For these reasons, the undersigned recommends that Respondent's motion be granted and that this matter 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).
Respectfully submitted.
[17-3] at 1.