IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
February 14, 2008
JOE LOUIS SIMPKINS II, PETITIONER,
RANDY DAVIS, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
On November 2, 2005, Joe Louis Simpkins II, an inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent Randy Davis, the Warden of USP-McCreary, responded to the habeas petition, and Simpkins filed a reply (Docs. 13 & 17). On December 13, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud submitted a Report to the undersigned District Judge (Doc. 19) which recommends that the Court deny Simpkins's petition.
The Report found that five of the seven claims raised by Simpkins cannot be considered by the Court because all of these claims could have and should have been brought in Simpkins's previously filed § 2255 action. See Doc. 13, Ex. C. Furthermore, the Report found that Relief could not be granted on either of the remaining claims. First, Simpkins's sentencing claim cannot be considered by the Court because it should have been brought on direct appeal. Second, Simpkins's request that his fine be suspended until he is transferred from USP-Marion is not a valid ground for habeas relief and, in any event, is moot because he has been transferred from USP-Marion.
The Report was sent to the parties along with a "NOTICE" informing them of their right to appeal by way of filing "Objections" within ten days of service of the Report. Simpkins failed to object by that date. Consequently, the Court adopted Judge Proud's Report in its entirety on January 10, 2008 and denied Simpkins's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 20).
On January 15, 2008, however, Simpkins submitted a motion for an extension of time to object. The Court granted the motion, vacated judgment, and re-opened the case (See Docs. 21 & 23). The Court set a deadline of February 8, 2008 by which the parties had to file any objections to the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 23).
To date, no objections have been filed, and the period in which such objections may be filed has expired. 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); Video Views Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, the undersigned District Judge ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Proud's Report and Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. 19), DENIES Simpkins's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1), and DISMISSES the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL J. REAGAN United States District Judge
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.