Ervin Sales Temaj v. Warden Unknown Childress and United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION ERVIN SALES TEMAJ PETITIONER CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-cv-616-HTW-LGI V. WARDEN UNKNOWN CHILDRESS and RESPONDENT UNITED STATES of AMERICA REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Ervin Sales Temaj filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Temaj challenges the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of his sentence under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194-249 (2018) (“FSA”). Respondents assert in opposition that the petition should be dismissed for lack of exhaustion, or alternatively, on the merits. Petitioner has not refuted, or otherwise responded, to Respondent’s assertions. Petitioner, instead, moves to dismiss his petition, advising that he is “no longer interested in pursuing the matters requested.” Having carefully considered the applicable law and the parties’ submissions, including the unrebutted grounds for dismissal asserted by Respondents, the undersigned recommends that Petitioner’s motion to voluntarily dismiss be granted and his petition be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, without prejudice.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT Under Rule 72(a)(3) of the Local Uniform Civil Rules of the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Mississippi and the Southern District of Mississippi, any party may serve and file written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Within 7 days of the service of the objection, the opposing party must either serve and file a response or notify the District Judge that he or she does not intend to respond to the objection.

The parties are notified that failure to file timely written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report and recommendation will bar that party from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (as amended, effective December 1, 2009); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996).

Respectfully submitted on May 27, 2026. s/ LaKeysha Greer Isaac UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE