United States District Court, Southern District of Georgia, Dublin Division
After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no. 17.) Petitioner does not offer any new information, evidence, or argument that warrants a deviation from the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Thus, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner's objections.
Petitioner also requests that the Court reprimand Respondent and his attorney for two reasons, (Doc. no. 18.) First, three of Respondent's filings contain typographical errors. (Id. at 1-3.) Second, Petitioner surmises Respondent misled the Court into granting him an extension to respond to the petition in order to review and coordinate immigration issues with different components of the Department of Justice, but must not have done so because the immigration issues were not addressed in the response. (Id.) Both issues, Petitioner argues, make it "obvious" that Respondent and his attorney '"were never engaged in the judicial process." (Id. at 2.)
The Court declines to reprimand Respondent or his attorney. First, the enumerated typographical errors were minor and harmless. Second, the Court cannot conclude that Respondent or his attorney never discussed the immigration issues with other components of the Department of Justice merely because it was not addressed in the response. Indeed, as discussed more fully in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, this case was dispositive on other grounds. Therefore, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion. (Doc.no. 18.)
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion., DENIES Petitioner's motion "'for immediate favorable decision, " DENIES die Petition, CLOSES this civil action, and DIRECTS the ...