Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McFarland v. Chester

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


January 12, 2009

MARK ANTHONY MCFARLAND, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CLAUDE CHESTER, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge

ORDER

On January 24, 2006, Mark Anthony McFarland, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Specifically, McFarland alleged that he had not been given any good time credit because he had been assigned a full term expiration date of February 6, 2011. Further, McFarland complained that the BOP was treating his five sentences of five years each as one twenty-five year sentence, which he believes decreases the amount of good time he can earn. Respondents filed responses to McFarland's petition on April 14, 2006 (Docs. 13 & 14). After receiving several extensions, petitioner filed a response on October 1, 2008 (Doc. 40).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Magistrate Judge Proud submitted a Report and Recommendation ("the Report") on October 17, 2008 (Doc. 41). The Report recommended that McFarland's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Report was sent to the attorneys of record and to McFarland with a notice informing them of their right to appeal by way of filing "objections" within ten days of service of the Report. On November 17, 2008, McFarland filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file objections (Doc. 42). The Court granted that motion and McFarland was given up to and including December 4, 2008 in which to file his objections (Doc. 43). On December 11, 2008, McFarland asked for a second extension of time in which to file objections (Doc. 44). The Court again granted the motion and McFarland was given up to and including December 31, 2008 in which to file his objections (Doc. 45). To date, none of the parties have filed objections. The period in which to file objections 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).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 41). The Court DISMISSES without prejudice McFarland's petition for writ of habeaus corpus for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

David R Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court

20090112

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.