JACKSON v. SAMPSON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
WILLIAM R. JACKSON, 	)
)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-CV-86 (MTT)
)
Warden GREGORY SAMPSON, 	)
)
)
Respondent. 	)
)
ORDER
On November 4, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle issued
an Order (ECF 39) denying in part and granting in part Petitioner William R. Jackson’s
motion to strike the Respondent’s answer (ECF 37) and denying his motion for hearing
(ECF 38). ECF 18. Finding that the Respondent mailed a copy of his answer to a
previous address for Jackson, the Magistrate Judge directed the Respondent to update
his mailing records and to re-send the answer and supporting exhibits. Id. Jackson filed
an Objection challenging the Magistrate Judge’s decision. ECF 44.
Since the Magistrate Judge clearly acted within his statutorily granted authority
in deciding a non-dispositive motion, the Court may only disturb his ruling when it is
“shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28
U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). “Clear error is a highly deferential standard of review.” Holton v.
City Thomasville Sch. Dist., 425 F.3d 1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “[A]
finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
Case 5:25-cv-00086-MTT-CHW Document 45 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 3

-2-
court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus.
Co., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997) (“The clear error standard [under Rule 72(a) and
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)] means that the district [judge] can overturn the magistrate
judge’s ruling only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been made.”).
In his Objection, Jackson apparently takes issue with substance of the
Respondent’s answer, arguing “the Respondent cannot refute honestly Ground One”
and “cannot refute honestly Ground Two” of his recast petition. ECF 44 at 1. He argues
that these “concrete issues … are intentionally disrupting the procedure for an
evidentiary hearing.” Id. Further, he argues that the Magistrate Judge “answer[ed] for”
the Respondent in finding that “it appears that Respondent mailed Petititoner’s copy of
the answer and supporting exhibits to a previous address” (ECF 39 at 1), and claims
that the Respondent committed “perjury and fraud upon the Court.” ECF 44 at 2. Finally,
Jackson maintains that the Magistrate Judge is “favoring clearly the Respondent” and
that “for the Magistrate to grant additional time to Respondent without justification and
proof respondent had not known of Petitioner’s current address is prejudicial,
miscarriage of justice, and non-waivable error.” Id. at 3-4.
Upon review of the Order and Jackson’s Objection, the Court finds no clear error
in the Magistrate Judge’s decision. First, Jackson’s insistence that the Respondent
cannot refute grounds in his amended petition does not constitute procedural unfairness
that would require an evidentiary hearing. These are simply arguments that Jackson
may raise in his reply. Second, contrary to Jackson’s contentions, the Respondent
Case 5:25-cv-00086-MTT-CHW Document 45 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 3

-3-
committed no perjury or fraud. The Respondent timely filed his answer with the Court
and mailed it to Jackson’s previous address. ECF 3, 33. This determination requires no
speculation by the Court nor “answer” from the Respondent because it is clear from the
face of the document. ECF 33-1 at 10. It is Jackson who is speculating that the
Respondent would claim—although he has not—that the Respondent “was not aware of
Petitioner’s current address.” ECF 44 at 2. Finally, as the Magistrate Judge already
explained to Jackson, even if the Respondent failed to answer, “default judgment is not
an available remedy in federal habeas corpus cases.” ECF 31 at 1-2 (citing Aziz v.
Leferve, 830 F.2d 184, 187 (11th Cir. 1987)). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES
Jackson’s Objection (ECF 44) to the Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF 39).
SO ORDERED, this 24th day of November, 2025.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:25-cv-00086-MTT-CHW Document 45 Filed 11/24/25 Page 3 of 3