McRand v. Wingfield

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM MCRAND PETITIONER

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-533-KHJ-MTP

WARDEN WINGFIELD RESPONDENT

ORDER Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker’s [21] Report and Recommendation. The Court adopts the [21] Report and dismisses without prejudice Petitioner William McRand’s [1] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. McRand filed a Section 2241 petition seeking to apply First Step Act time credits to his federal criminal sentence. [1] at 1. Respondent Warden Wingfield answered that McRand has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Resp. [17]. McRand did not reply. Having considered these arguments, Magistrate Judge Parker recommends dismissing without prejudice McRand’s [1] Petition. [21] at 5. When no party objects to a Magistrate Judge’s report, the Court need not review it . 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Instead, the Court can apply the “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion, and contrary to law” standard of review. , 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). The [21] Report notified McRand that failure to file written objections would bar further appeal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). [21] at 5–6. McRand did not object to the [21] Report, and the time to do so has passed. The Court finds that the [21] Report is not clearly erroneous, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law. So the Court adopts the [21] Report as the opinion of this Court. The Court has considered all arguments. Those not addressed would not have

changed the outcome. For the stated reasons, the Court ADOPTS the [21] Report and DISMISSES without prejudice McRand’s [1] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court will enter a separate final judgment consistent with this Order. SO ORDERED, this 1st day of October, 2025. s/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE