Jackson v. State of Mississippi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION KENNETH WAYNE JACKSON PETITIONER V. CIVIL NO. 3:24-CV-00424-DPJ-ASH STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RESPONDENT ORDER This mixed habeas petition is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [41] of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris. Kenneth Wayne Jackson filed his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2022 conviction in a Mississippi state court for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In his July 29, 2025 R&R, Judge Harris recommends granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss [20] the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust. R&R [41] at 1.1 Petitioner Jackson filed an objection [42] to Judge Harris’s R&R on August 18, 2025, six days after the fourteen-day deadline to object. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) as noted in Alexander v. Verizon 1 The R&R also addresses Jackson’s motion [35] seeking a writ of mandamus, recommending the Court deny it. There appears to be some confusion regarding that motion. The motion’s caption references this court, and it was docketed here. Id. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals then docketed the same motion on April 23, 2025. See [36]. After the R&R, on September 3, 2025, the Fifth Circuit dismissed motion [35] for failure to prosecute, and the clerk of court terminated it on this Court’s docket. To the extent there is anything for this Court to consider, it agrees with the R&R. Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017). “A district court is not required to consider late objections to a Report and Recommendation, whether to do so is a matter within the court’s discretion.” Nyabwa v. FaceBook, No. 2:17-CV-24, 2018 WL 585467 , at *1 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2018) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985); Scott v. Alford, 62 F.3d 395, *2 (5th Cir. 1995)). Finding no clear error, the Court accepts the magistrate judge’s well-reasoned recommendation. But even considering the delinquent objection, Jackson offers no reason to reach a different conclusion. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [41] of the United States Magistrate Judge is adopted as the finding and holding of this Court. Respondent’s motion to dismiss [20] is granted; the petition is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust. A separate judgment will be entered as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 5th day of September, 2025. s/ Daniel P. Jordan III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE