Hooks v. Allen (DEATH PENALTY)

Filing 53

ORDER overruling the 50 Objections; 44 Recommendation; denying the 29 MOTION for Discovery. An opinion will follow by separate filing. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/30/2011. (br, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION JOSEPH B. HOOKS, ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:10-CV-268-WKW ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. KIM T. THOMAS, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Respondent. ORDER Before the court are the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 44) and Petitioner Joseph B. Hooks’s Objections (Doc. # 50). The Magistrate Judge recommends the denial of Mr. Hooks’s Motion for Discovery (Doc. # 29), in which Mr. Hooks requests permission to obtain modern brain imaging at his own expense to prove his frontal lobe dysfunction and his claim that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment bars his execution because he suffered from a frontal lobe dysfunction of his brain at the time he committed the murders for which he was convicted and sentenced to death. The court, having independently reviewed the file in this case and conducted a de novo review, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Mr. Hooks’s Objections (Doc. # 50) are OVERRULED. 2. The Recommendation (Doc. # 44) is ADOPTED. 3. Mr. Hooks’s Motion for Discovery (Doc. # 29) is DENIED. An opinion will follow by separate filing. DONE this 30th day of September, 2011. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?