Carroll Wayne Sandridge v. John Ledbetter

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION CARROLL WAYNE SANDRIDGE PETITIONER v. CAUSE NO. 1:24-cv-384-LG-RPM JOHN LEDBETTER RESPONDENT ORDER ADOPTING [13] REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING [12] MOTION TO DISMISS BEFORE THE COURT is the [13] Report and Recommendations proposing that Petitioner Carroll Wayne Sandridge’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed with prejudice and any claims for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner did not file an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has expired.

Where no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made.”). In such cases, the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Douglass v. United Serv. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having conducted the required review, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed with prejudice as moot. Further Petitioner’s claims falling under § 2254 are dismissed without prejudice. The Court will enter a separate final judgment pursuant to Rule 58.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [13] Report and Recommendations is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent John Ledbetter’s [12] Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED Petitioner Carroll Wayne Sandridge’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s remaining 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 12th day of January, 2026.

Louis Guirola, Jr. s/ LOUIS GUIROLA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE