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.