Jackson v. Davenport et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 69

ORDER: The court has construed the Petitioner's 2/24/2016 filing (Doc. 66 ) as an Objection to the 57 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The objection is OVERRULED, and the court ADOPTS the 57 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. I t is hereby ORDERED that the 1 Petition for habeas corpus is DENIED as it was not filed within the period of limitation established by applicable federal law and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 3/17/2016. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

JEFFERY JAMES JACKSON,
Petitioner,
v.
CARTER DAVENPORT, WARDEN,
and LUTHER STRANGE, ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-111-WHA

ORDER
This case is before the court on Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #57) and
the Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. #58, #66) to the Recommendation.1
Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this case, the court
finds that the objection is without merit and is due to be overruled.
In his objection, the Petitioner does not assert a challenge to the Magistrate Judge’s
determination that his habeas application is untimely. Petitioner’s objection focuses on his
argument for actual innocence of the crime of felony murder as a “gateway” through which the
court may consider his claims that are otherwise time-barred.
Petitioner maintains there was an eyewitness at the crime scene known at the time that
was not called to testify at trial. The Magistrate Judge addressed this claim and rejected
Petitioner’s arguments. In his Objection, Petitioner reiterates the same arguments he initially

1

The court has construed the Petitioner’s February 24, 2016 filing (Doc. #66) as an Objection to the
Recommendation.

presented. The court agrees that the purported testimony of the uncalled eyewitness fails to
establish his actual innocence.
In addition, the Petitioner objects to the Recommendation on the grounds that the court
failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing, conduct discovery, and address all claims raised in his
petition. The Magistrate Judge properly did not address these issues as it was determined that the
petition was time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d).
Accordingly, the objection is OVERRULED, and the court ADOPTS the
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
It is hereby ORDERED that the petition for habeas corpus is DENIED as it was not filed
within the period of limitation established by applicable federal law and the case is DISMISSED
with prejudice.
Done this 17th day of March, 2016.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNTIED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE