D’Anthony Larome Davis v. Sheriff Ward Calhoun

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

D’ANTHONY LAROME DAVIS PETITIONER

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-CV-1-DPJ-ASH

SHERIFF WARD CALHOUN RESPONDENT

ORDER

D’Anthony Larome Davis filed this habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his pretrial detention in the Lauderdale County Detention Facility in Meridian, Mississippi. Pet. [1]. Respondent Sheriff Ward Calhoun moved to dismiss the Petition, arguing that Davis failed to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief, or alternatively, that Davis failed to exhaust his available state-court remedies. Mot. [9] at 15. On June 11, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris entered a Report and Recommendation [10]. Judge Harris recommends that the Court grant Respondent’s motion [9] and dismiss the petition with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim, or alternatively, without prejudice for failure to exhaust. R&R [10] at 4. No objection has been filed, and the time to do so has passed. See id. at 5 (informing Davis that he had 14 days to file an objection). “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983), quoted in Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) as noted in Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017). Having reviewed the record and found no clear error, the Court accepts Judge Harris’s well-reasoned recommendation. IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [10] of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris is adopted as the finding and holding of this Court. Consistent with the

Report and Recommendation, Davis’s petition [1] is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 7th day of July, 2026.

s/ Daniel P. Jordan III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE