Shepherd v. Warden

Docket 3:25-cv-00421

Filed
2025-06-10
Terminated
Not recorded
Case type
cv

Outcome

No sourced outcome is recorded. A termination date alone does not establish who prevailed.

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION ELVIN SHEPHERD PETITIONER V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-421-DPJ-ASH WARDEN, FCC YAZOO CITY RESPONDENT ORDER Petitioner Elvin Shepherd, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Complex in Yazoo City, Mississippi filed this habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Pet. [1]. He challenges the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) calculation of his sentence. Id. at 1. On August 4, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris entered a Report and Recommendation [9]. Judge Harris recommends that the Court deny and dismiss Shepherd’s petition with prejudice because, among other reasons, the “BOP has correctly calculated Shepherd’s sentence.” R&R [9] at 5. No objection has been filed, and the time to do so has passed.1 See id. at 7–8 (advising Shepherd that he had 14 days to file an objection). “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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) as noted in Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017). Having 1 The Court mailed a copy of Judge Harris’s R&R to Shepherd at his last known address at Yazoo City Low, P. O. Box 5000, Yazoo City, MS 39194. See Aug. 4, 2026 Staff Note. On August 17, 2026, the envelope containing the R&R was returned and marked “person no longer here.” Mail Returned [10] at 1. reviewed the record and found no clear error, the Court accepts Judge Harris’s well-reasoned recommendation. IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [9] of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris is adopted as the finding and holding of this Court. Consistent with the Report and Recommendation, Shepherd’s petition is denied and dismissed with prejudice. A separate judgment will be issued as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 26th day of August, 2026. s/ Daniel P. Jordan III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.