Case Name: Jessie Calvin HAWKINS, Petitioner-Appellee v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-27
Citations: 283 F. App'x 292
Docket Number: No. 07-10796
Parties: Jessie Calvin HAWKINS, Petitioner-Appellee v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 292–293

Head Matter:
Jessie Calvin HAWKINS, Petitioner-Appellee v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 07-10796
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 27, 2008.
Jessie Calvin Hawkins, Bridgeport, TX, pro se.
Joseph Peter Corcoran, Office of the Attorney General, Postconviction Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellant.
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jessie Hawkins, Texas prisoner # 287280, was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to serve 25 years in prison. Hawkins filed the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition to raise claims concerning credit for time served while on parole or mandatory supervision, and the district court dismissed the petition without prejudice for want of exhaustion. The respondent appeals the district court's judgment and argues that the dismissal should have been with prejudice. The respondent argues that the exhaustion requirement should be flexibly applied and that, because Hawkins's § 2254 petition was untimely and lacked merit, the district court should have dismissed it with prejudice.
We review the district court's decision to dismiss the petition without prejudice for an abuse of discretion. See Horsley v. Johnson, 197 F.3d 134, 136 (5th Cir.1999). Our review of the record does not show that the district court's decision to dismiss Hawkins's petition without prejudice was based on a legal error or a clearly erroneous view of the pertinent facts. See Rodriguez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 694, 696 (5th Cir.1997). Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it decided to dismiss Hawkins's § 2254 petition without prejudice. See id.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.