Opinion
Case No.: 1:10-cv-71 (WLS).
October 4, 2011
ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff, filed September 8, 2011. (Doc. 38). It is recommended that pursuant to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6), Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 state petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies at the state court level. (Doc. 38 at 5).
The Report and Recommendation provided the Parties with fourteen (14) days from the date of its service to file written objections to the recommendations therein. ( Id.). The period for filing objections expired on Monday, September, 26, 2011, yet no objections to the September 8, 2011 Report and Recommendation have been filed to date. ( See Docket).
The Parties were given an additional three days because service was made by mail. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) (adding three days to specified period within which a party may act if service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C) by mailing process to a party's last known address).
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 6(a)(1)(C), because the actual deadline for filing objections — Sunday, September 25, 2011 — fell on a weekend, the deadline was extended to Monday, September 26, 2011. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1)(C).
Upon full review and consideration of the record, and the absence of an objection from the record, the Court finds that Judge Langstaff's September 8, 2011 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 38) should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's § 2254 habeas corpus petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If he wishes, Petitioner may re-file his claim once he has exhausted the remedies available to him in the state court system.
SO ORDERED.