District Court, D. New Mexico, 2026

Matthew Stephen Hepple v. Attorney General for the State of New Mexico

Matthew Stephen Hepple v. Attorney General for the State of New Mexico
District Court, D. New Mexico · Decided June 2, 2026
Matthew Stephen Hepple v. Attorney General for the State of New Mexico

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

MATTHEW STEPHEN HEPPLE,

Petitioner, v. No. 2:23-cv-00864-MV-KRS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

THIS MATTER is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”) filed May 4, 2026. (Doc. 16.) In the PRFD, Judge Sweazea found that Respondent Attorney General for the State of New Mexico’s (“Respondent”) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Comply with Court Orders, (Doc. 13), is without merit and recommends denying without prejudice.

The PFRD notified the parties of their ability to file objections no later than 14 days after the PFRD was filed. (Doc. 16 at 12). The parties have not filed any objections to date. The Tenth Circuit has held “that a party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). The failure to make timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions. Id. at 1059.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Magistrate Judge Sweazea’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, (Doc. 16), are ADOPTED; 2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Comply with Court Orders, (Doc. 13), is DENIED without prejudice; 3. Respondent shall Answer the Petition, (Doc. 1), within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order. The Answer must address the merits of Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody claims and whether Petitioner has established grounds to toll or overcome the habeas limitation period; and 4. Petitioner may file a reply within twenty (20) days after Respondent files an Answer. DATED this 2nd day of June 2026.

MARTHA WA ZQUEs

‘Senior United States District Judge

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.