From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Thomas

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Albany Division
Mar 10, 2010
CASE NO.: 1:06-CV-136 (WLS) (M.D. Ga. Mar. 10, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO.: 1:06-CV-136 (WLS).

March 10, 2010


ORDER


Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Claude W. Hicks., Jr., filed February 19, 2010. (Doc. 31). It is recommended that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 3) be denied. (Doc. 31 at 5).

The Report and Recommendation provided Petitioner with fourteen (14) days to serve and file written objections to the recommendations therein with this Court. ( Id.). The period for objections expired on Monday, March 8, 2010; no objections have been filed to date. ( See Docket).

Although fourteen (14) days following February 19, 2010 was March 5, 2010, application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) adds three (3) days to provide for service by mail of the Report and Recommendation upon Petitioner. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) (2009) ("When a party may or must act within a specified time after service and service is made [by mail], 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under [the Rules].").

Upon full review and consideration upon the record, the Court finds that said Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31) should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 3) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Thomas v. Thomas

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Albany Division
Mar 10, 2010
CASE NO.: 1:06-CV-136 (WLS) (M.D. Ga. Mar. 10, 2010)
Case details for

Thomas v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY T. THOMAS, Petitioner, v. TODD THOMAS, Warden, et al., Respondents

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Albany Division

Date published: Mar 10, 2010

Citations

CASE NO.: 1:06-CV-136 (WLS) (M.D. Ga. Mar. 10, 2010)

Citing Cases

Hicks v. Colvin

Consequently, the Commissioner's objections were timely. See Thomas v. Thomas, No. 1:06-CV-136(WLS), 2010 WL…