Natty v. Holder et al, No. 2:2011cv00156 - Document 37 (N.D. Ga. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER adopting and approving the 34 Final Report and Recommendation as the Opinion and Order of this Court. Based on the foregoing, Respondent Stone's 9 Motion to Dismiss and Substitute is GRANTED; Petitioner's 11 and 14 Motions to Deny Respondent Stone's Motion to Dismiss are DENIED; Petitioner's 12 Motion for Emergency Injunction is DENIED as moot; Petitioner's 18 , 20 , and 21 Motions to Dismiss the Federal Respondents' Response and 27 Motion to Dismiss their Supplemental Response are DENIED; and the 1 Habeas Corpus Petition is DISMISSED, as moot. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 02/17/12. (sk)

Download PDF
Natty v. Holder et al Doc. 37 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION THERESE VERONICA NATTY, Petitioner, v. ERICK HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, et al. Respondents. : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-0156-RWS ORDER This case is before the Court for consideration of the Final Report and Recommendation [34] of Magistrate Judge Susan S. Cole. After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s Objections [35], and Respondents’ Reply [36], the Report and Recommendation is received with approval and adopted as the Opinion and Order of this Court. The Court finds that each of the issues raised in Petitioner’s Objections was properly addressed in the Report and Recommendation. Based on the foregoing, Respondent Stone’s Motion to Dismiss and to Substitute [9] is GRANTED; Petitioner’s Motions to Deny Respondent Stone’s Motion to Dismiss [11 and 14] are DENIED; Petitioner’s Motion for Emergency Injunction [12] is DENIED, as moot; Petitioner’s Motions to AO 72A (Rev.8/82) Dockets.Justia.com Dismiss the Federal Respondents’ Response [18, 20, and 21] and Motion to Dismiss Their Supplemental Response [27] are DENIED; and the Habeas Corpus Petition [1] is DISMISSED, as moot. SO ORDERED, this 17th day of February, 2012. _______________________________ RICHARD W. STORY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.