Quick v. Carter et al (INMATE2)

Filing 2

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Robbie Quick; 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 USC 2241(d); Objections to R&R due by 5/4/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 4/21/09. (vma, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _____________________________ R O B B IE QUICK, #257 889, P e t i t io n e r , v. M A R Y CARTER, WARDEN, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts . _____________________________ * * * * * 2:09-CV-355-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 17, 2009. In this petition, Petitioner challenges the

amount of jail credit awarded to her by the Circuit Court for Madison County, Alabama, on a sentence imposed in 2008 for her conviction on a drug offense (trafficking in cocaine).
D IS C U S S IO N 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 the amount of jail credit granted by the Circuit Court for Madison C o u n ty, Alabama. Madison County is located within the jurisdiction of the United States D istric t Court for the Northern District of Alabama. In light of the foregoing, the court c o n c lu d e s that the transfer of this case to such other court for review and disposition is

a p p r o p r i a te .1 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 said R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before May 4, 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

In transferring the instant case, this court makes no determination regarding the merits of Petitioner's c la im for relief nor whether she has exhausted available state court remedies prior to filing a federal habeas p etition as required by 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(b)(1)(A).

1

2

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.

Done, this 21s t day of April 2009.

/s / Wallace Capel, Jr. W A L L A C E CAPEL, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3