Macks v. Mosley et al (INMATE 2)
RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama as further set out in order. Objections to R&R due by 12/18/2006. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 12/6/06. (sl, )
Macks v. Mosley et al (INMATE 2)
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION RONDAL HOWARD MACKS, #220 315 Petitioner, v. WARDEN GWENDOLYN MOSLEY, et al., Respondents. RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h is matter is pending on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus filed by R o n d a l Howard Macks ("Petitioner") on November 30, 2006, to challenge his convictions b y the Circuit Court for Escambia County, Alabama, in September 2001, for second degree assa u lt, attempted murder, and first degree burglary. Petitioner is currently serving two life sen tenc es plus ten years. This court, "in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice," may tra n sfe r Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus to "the district court for the district w ith in which the State court was held which convicted" Petitioner. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Escambia County is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the So u th e rn District of Alabama. Thus, it is appropriate to transfer this case for hearing and d e ter m in a tio n by the federal district court in which the Escambia County Circuit Court is loca ted.. 1 * * * * * 2:06-CV-1070-MHT-DRB (WO)
A decision on Petitioner's application for in forma pauperis status is reserved for ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
Page 2 of 3
A c co rd in gly , it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case b e transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama p u rsua n t to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). It is further ORDERED that the parties file any objections to this Recommendation o n or before December 18, 2006. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, co n clus ive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are a d vis e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a la b le . F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M a gis tra te Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District C o u rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual fin d in gs in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain erro 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 t h Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P ric h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c is io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on Se p te m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e , this 6 th day of December 2006. / s / Delores R. Boyd D E L O R E S R. BOYD 2
Page 3 of 3
U N IT E D 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?