Hunter v. State

Full title: ADRIAN HUNTER, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

Court: United States District Court, Northern District of Florida

Date published: Jun 17, 2021

3:21cv534/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. Jun. 17, 2021)

Opinion

3:21cv534/MCR/EMT

06-17-2021

ADRIAN HUNTER, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

On March 30, 2021, the court entered an order notifying Petitioner that if he wished to proceed with a habeas corpus action he must (1) file a petition on the court-approved form provided to him by the clerk of court, and (2) either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) within thirty days (ECF No. 3). The undersigned notified Petitioner that if he failed to timely comply with the order, the undersigned would recommend dismissal of this case (id. at 4).

After Petitioner failed to comply within the time allowed, the court entered an order on May 10, 2021, directing Petitioner to show cause, within thirty days, why the case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with an order of the court (ECF No. 4). The court notified Petitioner that his failure to comply with the show cause order would result in a recommendation of dismissal of this case (id. at 2). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed, and Petitioner has not filed a habeas petition, paid the filing fee, or filed an IFP motion.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Petitioner's failure to comply with an order of the court.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.