Reeves v. Forniss, et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 14

OPINION AND ORDER directing that, upon an independent and de novo review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the recommendation of the magistrate judge, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED (1) that the recommendation of the magistrate judge (do c. no. 13 ) is adopted; (2) that the petition for habeas-corpus relief (doc. no. 1 ), to the extent the petitioner challenges the denial of his 2011 petition for re-sentencing is denied; and (3) that the petition for habeas-corpus relief (doc. no. 1 ), to the extent the petitioner challenges the 2007 revocation of his probation, is dismissed with prejudice as the petitioner failed to file the petition for habeas-corpus relief within the one-year period of limitation set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); further ORDERED that costs are taxed against the petitioner, for which execution may issue. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/9/14. (scn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES REEVES,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF ALABAMA, et. al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:12cv100-TMH
[WO]

OPINION AND ORDER
On March 11, 2014, the magistrate judge filed a recommendation in this case that the
court dismiss the petition for habeas corpus relief filed in this action. No objections have
been filed. Upon an independent and de novo review of the file in this case and upon
consideration of the recommendation of the magistrate judge, it is ORDERED and
ADJUDGED (1) that the recommendation of the magistrate judge (doc. no. 13) is adopted;
(2) that the petition for habeas-corpus relief (doc. no. 1), to the extent the petitioner
challenges the denial of his 2011 petition for re-sentencing is denied; and (3) that the petition
for habeas-corpus relief (doc. no. 1), to the extent the petitioner challenges the 2007
revocation of his probation, is dismissed with prejudice as the petitioner failed to file the
petition for habeas-corpus relief within the one-year period of limitation set forth in 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
It is further ORDERED that costs are taxed against the petitioner, for which execution
may issue.

This case is closed.
DONE this 9th day of April, 2014.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE