Hooks v. Yates

W.D. Arkansas

Hooks v. Yates

DecidedAugust 23, 2022

Docket6:22-cv-06056

StatusUnknown

This text of Hooks v. Yates (Hooks v. Yates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hooks v. Yates, (W.D. Ark. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

CASEY A. HOOKS PETITIONER

v. No. 6:22-cv-06056

WARDAN JOHN YATES RESPONDENT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before this Court is the Supplement filed by Petitioner, Casey A. Hooks. ECF No. 5. With this Supplement, Hooks requests, through his counsel, that his case be dismissed without prejudice. The Court has contacted the Government, and there are no objections to this Motion. ECF No. 6. Hooks filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Under this provision, Hooks must file his action in the “district wherein the restraint complained of is had.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Hooks is being held in the Federal Correctional Institution in Forrest City, Arkansas. This facility is not located in the Western District of Arkansas. Accordingly, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, and this case should be dismissed without prejudice. See, e.g., Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 862 (8th Cir. 1994) (recognizing such a dismissal is without prejudice). The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990). SIGNED this 23rd day of August 2022. Barry A. Bryant /s/ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

CASEY A. HOOKS PETITIONER

v. No. 6:22-cv-06056

WARDAN JOHN YATES RESPONDENT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before this Court is the Supplement filed by Petitioner, Casey A. Hooks. ECF No. 5. With this Supplement, Hooks requests, through his counsel, that his case be dismissed without prejudice. The Court has contacted the Government, and there are no objections to this Motion. ECF No. 6. Hooks filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Under this provision, Hooks must file his action in the “district wherein the restraint complained of is had.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Hooks is being held in the Federal Correctional Institution in Forrest City, Arkansas. This facility is not located in the Western District of Arkansas. Accordingly, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, and this case should be dismissed without prejudice. See, e.g., Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 862 (8th Cir. 1994) (recognizing such a dismissal is without prejudice). The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990). SIGNED this 23rd day of August 2022. Barry A. Bryant /s/ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hooks v. Yates, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hooks-v-yates-arwd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack