Curtis v. Gibson et al, No. 5:2014cv00090 - Document 36 (E.D. Ark. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING 30 PARTIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS as this Court's findings in all respects. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 08/01/2014. (rhm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Curtis v. Gibson et al Doc. 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION DEMETRIUS CURTIS, ADC #120225 v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 5:14-cv-00090-KGB-JJV GIBSON, Deputy Warden, Delta Regional Unit; et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 30) and plaintiff Demetrius Curtis’s objections (Dkt. No. 31). After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. It is therefore ordered that Mr. Curtis’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied. The Court writes separately to address Mr. Curtis’s objections. He argues that he has exhausted his state remedies and that this Court may consider his request for what is habeas relief because he recently filed a writ of habeas corpus in state court. However, to have exhausted his state remedies, Mr. Curtis must have sought and been denied relief in the state courts, including in the appropriate state appellate courts. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 477 (1973); see Turnage v. Fabian, 606 F.3d 933, 936 (8th Cir. 2010). This requirement provides states the opportunity to review and correct alleged violations of a petitioner’s federal rights. Turnage, 606 F.3d at 936. Mr. Curtis has not been denied relief in the state courts. Dockets.Justia.com SO ORDERED this the 1st day of August, 2014. ________________________________ KRISTINE G. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
