From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boatwright v. Washington

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
Dec 12, 2007
NO. 5:07-CV-338 (CAR) (M.D. Ga. Dec. 12, 2007)

Opinion

NO. 5:07-CV-338 (CAR).

December 12, 2007


PROCEEDINGS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 BEFORE THE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE


ORDER

Before the court are two motions filed by petitioner MARK OTIS BOATWRIGHT in the above-captioned habeas corpus proceeding. The first motion is entitled "Motion in Opposition to the Respondent Brief in Support of Answer-Response for Failure to Comply to Rule No. 5." Tab #21. This Motion in Opposition does not appear to be a motion at all insomuch as its purpose does not appear to be to request any specific relief. Rather, it appears to be a response to the respondent's answer (Tab #18). Accordingly, petitioner Boatwright's Motion in Opposition is DENIED.

Petitioner Boatwright's second motion requests default judgment. Tab #22. However, a review of the file reveals that a timely response has been filed; there is no basis for granting a default judgment. In any event, judgments by default are not contemplated in habeas corpus cases. Accordingly, this motion is also DENIED.

SO ORDERED AND DIRECTED.


Summaries of

Boatwright v. Washington

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
Dec 12, 2007
NO. 5:07-CV-338 (CAR) (M.D. Ga. Dec. 12, 2007)
Case details for

Boatwright v. Washington

Case Details

Full title:MARK OTIS BOATWRIGHT, Petitioner v. ANTHONY WASHINGTON, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division

Date published: Dec 12, 2007

Citations

NO. 5:07-CV-338 (CAR) (M.D. Ga. Dec. 12, 2007)