United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, IR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Catherine M.
Salinas's Final Report and Recommendation 
(“R&R”). The R&R recommends the Court
deny Petitioner Baker Edman Clark's
(“Petitioner”) 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas
corpus petition , construed as his Writ of Mandamus. Also
before the Court is Petitioner's “Motion to Dismiss
the Objection Part of Petitioner's Response to
Magistrate's Order Directing the Petitioner to
Consolidate his two Petitions for Writ of Habeas
Corpus”  (“Motion to Dismiss
2016, Petitioner, who is confined in state prison, submitted
two “Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254.” Based on these petitions, the
Clerk of Court opened this case and Case No. 1:16-cv-192. On
April 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an order 
(“Show Cause Order”) in this case requiring
Petitioner “to file an Amended Petition that sets forth
all his claims in a single document and to [show
cause]” why Case No. 1:16-cv-192 should not be
administratively closed as duplicative of this case. (Show
Cause Order at 1-2).
10, 2016, Petitioner filed his “Response and
Objection”  to the Show Cause Order, stating that he
does not intend to attack his state court convictions in this
case, but rather seeks to obtain an order directing a state
court to “amend and correct” a transcript of its
proceedings. ( at 2 (“[T]his petition is based on a
post-conviction motion to amend and correct the trial
court's transcript and has nothing to do with
petitioner's convictions or sentences.”)).
February 16, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued her R&R.
In light of Petitioner's representation that he seeks to
amend and correct a transcript of a state court proceeding,
the Magistrate Judge ordered the Clerk to recategorize this
action as one seeking a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1651. The Magistrate Judge determined that
Petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief, and recommends
the Court dismiss this action.
February 23, 2017, Petitioner filed his Motion to Dismiss
Objection, seeking to strike the “Objection”
portion of his response to the Magistrate Judge's Show
Cause Order. Petitioner does not appear to object to the
R&R. The same day, Petitioner filed his brief in support
of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he
presents several attacks on his state court conviction. It is
evident that Petitioner intended to file this document in
Case No. 1:16-cv-192.
conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or
modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681
F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). A district judge
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions
of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). Where, as here, no party has objected to
the report and recommendation, the Court conducts only a
plain error review of the record. United States v.
Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
Magistrate Judge determined that Petitioner is not entitled
to mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The Court
agrees. “[A] federal court lacks the general power to
issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their
judicial officers in the performance of their duties.”
Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb Cty. Sup. Ct., 474 F.2d 1275,
1276 (5th Cir. 1973). Because Petitioner is not entitled to
mandamus relief, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court
dismiss this action. The Court finds no plain error in the
Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, and this
action is dismissed.
foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas's Final Report ...