Brumfield v. Cain et al (INMATE 2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by George A. Brumfield, it is the Recommendation of the Mag. Judge that this case be transferred to the USDC for the NDAL pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2241(d); Objections to R&R due by 8/30/2005. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 8/17/05. (vmc, )
Brumfield v. Cain et al (INMATE 2)
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F OR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _______________________________ G E O R G E A. BRUMFIELD, #89824 Petitioner, v. B U R L CAIN, WARDEN, et al., Respondents. _______________________________ * * *CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-768-A (WO) * *
R E C O M M E N D A TI O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this petition for habeas corpus filed on August 11, 2005, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2 2 5 4 , George Brumfield ("Brumfield") challenges a conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the Circuit Court for Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. "In the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice," this court may transfer this habeas petition to "the district court for the district within which the State court was held w h i c h convicted" Brumfield. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Tuscaloosa County is located within the j u r is d i c ti o n of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, and the court deems it appropriate to transfer this case to that District for ruling on Brumfield's application for in forma pauperis status and final determination of the petition. A c c o r d i n g l y , it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case b e transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama pursuan t to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
Page 2 of 2
It is further O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said R e c o m m e n d a t i o n on or before August 30, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, c o n c l u s iv e or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are a d v i s e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a l a b le . Failu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M agistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Cou rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual f i n d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e r r o r or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v . Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P r i c h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c i s io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p t e m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e this 17th day of August, 2005. / s / Delores R. Boyd D E L O R ES R. BOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?