Adan v. Toole, No. 1:2014cv04121 - Document 12 (N.D. Ga. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Janet F. King's Final Report and Recommendation 10 is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Saleeban Adan's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 4 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 10/7/2015. (anc)

Download PDF
Adan v. Toole Doc. 12 Dockets.Justia.com January 22, 2015, Petitioner filed his first Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [3] (“First Application”). On February 5, 2015, Petitioner filed his Amended Petitioner. On February 11, 2015, the Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner had sufficient financial means to pay the $5.00 filing fee, denied Petitioner’s First Application, and ordered Petitioner to pay the filing fee. (February 11, 2015, Order, [5] at 1-2). On February 27, 2015, Petitioner filed his second Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [6] (“Second Application”). On March 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner had sufficient financial means to pay the $5.00 filing fee, denied Petitioner’s Second Application, and ordered Petitioner to pay the filing fee. (March 18, 2015, Order, [7] at 1-2). On May 4, 2015, the Magistrate Judge ordered Petitioner, within fifteen (15) days, to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s February 11, 2015, and March 18, 2015, Orders. (May 4, 2015, Order, [9] at 1). Petitioner did not respond to the Magistrate Judge’s May 4, 2015, Order, and did not pay the $5.00 filing fee. On June 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s Petition without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to comply with the 2 Magistrate Judge’s Orders. (R&R at 1). Petitioner did not file any objections to the R&R. II. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With respect to those findings and recommendations to which objections have not been asserted, the Court must conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984). Petitioner did not object to the R&R and the Court thus reviews it for plain error. B. Analysis The Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner failed to comply with the February 11, 2015, March 18, 2015, and May 4, 2015, Orders, and properly recommended that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s Petition. See LR 41.3(A)(2), 3 NDGa. The Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation. See Slay, 714 F.2d at 1095. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Janet F. King’s Final Report and Recommendation [10] is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Saleeban Adan’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [4] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED this 7th day of October, 2015. _______________________________ WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.