Russell v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
ORDER ADOPTING 32 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; ORDERED that Petitioner's 36 Objections are OVERRULED, and this 28 USC § 2255 motion filed by James R. Russell is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 8/29/2013. (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JAMES R. RUSSELL,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv418-WHA
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #32),
entered on June 28, 2013, and the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. #36), timely-filed by mailing.
The court has conducted an independent evaluation and de novo review of the entire file,
and, having done so, finds that the objections are to be OVERRULED.
The Petitioner bases his objection on the contention that he established his claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel in regard to the issue of voice recognition on intercepted
telephone calls. He further contends that, at the very least, an evidentiary hearing should have
been conducted on the issue. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation includes a detailed and
well-reasoned discussion of this issue, with which this court agrees. The court further agrees
with the Magistrate Judge’s findings in regard to all other arguments of the Petitioner for
ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation, and it is
ORDERED that Petitioner’s Objections are OVERRULED, and this 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion filed by James R. Russell is DENIED. Final Judgment will be entered accordingly.
DONE this 29th day of August, 2013.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?