Dion Mario Neal v. Burl Cain, Commissioner

• Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi
• Decided: January 16, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00023
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION

DION MARIO NEAL PETITIONER

v. CAUSE NO. 1:25cv23-LG-ASH

BURL CAIN, Commissioner RESPONDENT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Dion Mario Neal filed this habeas petition challenging his 2022 convictions for sexual battery and possession of a firearm by a felon. Respondent Burl Cain filed a [13] Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Neal’s petition should be dismissed as untimely, or in the alternative, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The United States Magistrate Judge assigned to this case has entered a [25] Report and Recommendation proposing that Cain’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted because Neal’s petition is untimely. The Magistrate Judge further recommended dismissal of Neal’s claims requesting a change in “prison conditions and an investigation into state officials” because those claims are not cognizable in a habeas action. R. & R. [25] at 12. Neal filed an [26] objection, and Cain filed a [27] response. Neal also filed a [28] reply to Cain’s response. After reviewing the submissions of the parties, the record in this matter, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of this Court. DISCUSSION When no party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report, the district court applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion[,] and contrary to law standard of review.” United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (citation modified). But when a party objects to portions of the report, the district

court must review those portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Nevertheless, “[p]arties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive[,] or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996). A party who merely reasserts legal arguments

previously made in other filings does not assert a factual objection. See Smith v. Collins, 964 F.2d 483, 485 (5th Cir. 1992). And a court considering an objection need not “reiterate the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge.” Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Neal filed a document entitled “Objection,” but he did not present any arguments or address any of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations.

He merely produced exhibits that he had previously filed with the Court. After reviewing the record, including Neal’s exhibits, the Court finds that the thorough, well-reasoned Report and Recommendation entered by the Magistrate Judge should be adopted as the opinion of this Court. Neal’s habeas petition is dismissed as untimely, and his non-habeas claims are dismissed without prejudice. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [25] Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that a [13] Motion to

Dismiss Respondent Burl Cain is GRANTED. The [1, 5] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as untimely, and all non- habeas claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all other pending Motions are MOOT. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 16th day of January, 2026. Louis Guirola, Jr. s/ LOUIS GUIROLA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE