Justin Stewart Lease v. Burl Cain

Opinion

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

JUSTIN STEWART LEASE § PETITIONER § § v. § Civil No. 1:24-cv-356-HSO- § BWR § § BURL CAIN § RESPONDENT

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [20], GRANTING RESPONDENT BURL CAIN’S MOTION [11] TO DISMISS, AND DISMISSING PETITION [1]

On November 10, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Bradley W. Rath entered a Report and Recommendation [20], recommending that Respondent Burl Cain’s Motion [11] to Dismiss be granted, that Petitioner Justin Stewart Lease’s Petition [1] for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief, or alternatively, dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust available state court remedies, that his request for compensation be dismissed without prejudice, and that Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability. See R. & R. [20] at 11. Neither party has objected to the Report and Recommendation [20], and the time for doing so has passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); L.U. Civ. R. 72(a)(3). After a review of the record and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation [20] should be adopted, that the Petition [1] should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief, or alternatively, dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust available state court remedies, that Petitioner’s request for compensation should be dismissed without prejudice, and that Petitioner should be denied a certificate of

appealability. I. DISCUSSION “Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also L.U. Civ. R. 72(a)(3). Where no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). Where there are no objections, the Court applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review to the report and recommendation. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). Here, the record reflects that a copy of the Report and Recommendation [20]

was mailed to Petitioner at his address of record on the date it was entered. This was more than fourteen days ago, and Petitioner has not filed any objections. See R &R [20] at 1; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Respondent has similarly not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation [20]. Therefore, the “abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review applies. See Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, at 1221.

2 Having conducted the required review, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation [20] is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [20] as the

opinion of this Court and grant Respondent’s Motion [11]. The Court will dismiss the Petition [1] and will dismiss the request for compensation without prejudice. II. CONCLUSION IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Report and Recommendation [20] of United States Magistrate Judge Bradley W. Rath, entered on November 10, 2025, is ADOPTED as the finding of this Court. IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Petitioner Justin

Stewart Lease’s Petition [1] for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief, or alternatively, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust available state court remedies. IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Petitioner’s request for compensation is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Petitioner will be DENIED a certificate of appealability. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 9th day of December, 2025. s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden

HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3