Jones v. State of Alabama et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 10

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be TRANSFERRED to the USDC NDAL pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 2241(d); Objections to R&R due by 6/15/2009. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 6/1/2009. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _____________________________ W A L T E R CHARLES JONES, JR. # 2 2 7 540 P e titio n e r, v. STATE OF ALABAMA, R e sp o n d e n t. _____________________________ * * * * * 2:09-CV-344-WHA (WO)

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h is matter is pending before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas c o rp u s filed by Petitioner on April 15, 2009. In this petition, Petitioner challenges his c o n v ictio n s for first degree attempted rape and first degree sexual abuse entered against him b y the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Alabama, on February 10, 2003. DISCUSSION T h is court, "in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice," may transfer P e titio n e r's application for writ of habeas corpus to "the district court for the district within w h ic h the State court was held which convicted" Petitioner. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner s e e k s to challenge convictions entered against him by the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, A la b a m a . Jefferson County is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District C o u rt for the Northern District of Alabama. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes th a t the transfer of this case to such other court for review and disposition is appropriate.

C O N C L U SIO N Accordingly, 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 p u rsua n t to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). It is further O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before June 15, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify th e findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, co n clus ive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are a d v is 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 g is 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 f in d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e rr 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 ic 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 S e p te m b e r 30, 1981.

2

D o n e , this 1st day of June 2009.

/s /T e r r y F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3