# Brown v. Lauderdale County

> District Court, S.D. Mississippi · August 11, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11118396

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Mississippi
- **Decided:** August 11, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11118396

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

DECAMRON BROWN PETITIONER

vs. CIVIL ACTION No.: 3:24-CV-487-HTW-LGI

LAUDERDALE COUNTY and SHERIFF
WARD CALHOUN RESPONDENTS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BEFORE THIS COURT is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge LaKeysha Greer Isaac, filed in the above-captioned matter on May 21, 2025. ECF No. 12.
Magistrate Judge Isaac carefully considered the submissions of the parties, the record, and relevant
law, and crafted a sound Report and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Isaac recommended that
this Court grant Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) and deny this Petition for Habeas
Corpus (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241) on the merits. Magistrate Judge Isaac directed the parties
to file any objections within fourteen (14) days. Neither party has filed an objection to date, and
the time to do so has expired.1
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Isaac’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
12) hereby is ADOPTED; Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED; and this

1 “[A] party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation … after being served with a
copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the
unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court,
provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure
to object.” Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc),
superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Magistrate Judge Isaac’s Report
and Recommendation explicitly warned Petitioner of the Douglass rule.
Petition is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Court, separately, will enter
a Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 11th day of August , 2025.

/s/HENRY T. WINGATE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11118396. Public record. Not legal advice.