Paul Shattuck v. John Ledbetter

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION PAUL SHATTUCK § PETITIONER § § v. § Civil No. 1:25-cv-84-HSO- § RPM § § JOHN LEDBETTER § RESPONDENT

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [26], GRANTING RESPONDENT JOHN LEDBETTER’S MOTION [12] TO DISMISS, AND DISMISSING THE PETITION [1] On January 29, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Robert P. Myers, Jr. entered a Report and Recommendation [26], recommending that Respondent John Ledbetter’s Motion [12] to Dismiss be granted, and that Petitioner Paul Shattuck’s Petition [1] for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed without prejudice. See R. & R. [26] at 11. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that some of Petitioner’s claims are not proper in a § 2241 petition, id. at 4, others are premature, id. at 5, 9, and, in general, that he has failed to exhaust available state court remedies, id. at 10.

Petitioner has not objected to the Report and Recommendation [26], and the time for doing so has passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); L.U. Civ. R. 72(a)(3).

After a review of the record and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation [26] should be adopted, that Respondent’s Motion [12] to Dismiss should be granted, and that the Petition [1] should be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner should also be denied a certificate of appealability.

I. DISCUSSION “Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); L.U. Civ. R. 72(a)(3). Where no party has objected to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a court need not conduct a de novo review of it. 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 or recommendations to which objection is made.”). In such cases, a court applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).

Here, the record reflects that a copy of the Report and Recommendation [26] was mailed to Petitioner at his address of record on the date it was entered, January 29, 2026, see R. & R. [26] at 6, and it has not been returned as undeliverable. This was more than fourteen days ago, and Petitioner has not filed any objections. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Respondent has similarly not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation [26]. Therefore, the “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review applies. See Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221.

Having conducted the required review, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation [26] is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [26] as the opinion of this Court and will grant Respondent’s Motion [12]. The Court will also dismiss the Petition [1].

II. CONCLUSION IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Report and Recommendation [26] of United States Magistrate Judge Robert P. Myers, Jr., entered on January 29, 2026, is ADOPTED as the finding of this Court.

IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Respondent John Ledbetter’s Motion [12] to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Petitioner Paul Shattuck’s Petition [1] for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 26th day of February, 2026. s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE