Hatfield v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 53

ORDER as follows: 1. Petitioner's 52 Objections are OVERRULED. 2. The 51 Recommendation is ADOPTED. 3. Petitioner's 1 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is DENIED with prejudice because the claims therein entitled him to no relief.A final judgment will be entered separately. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 10/21/2015. (dmn, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION THERRAL HATFIELD, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:13-CV-324-WKW [WO] ORDER On September 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 51) to which Petitioner Therral Hatfield filed objections (Doc. # 52). The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). To the extent that Petitioner presents new factual assertions in his objections, they come too late to revive the claims that are the subject of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation of dismissal. Cf. Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding “that a district court has discretion to decline to consider a party’s argument when that argument was not first presented to the magistrate judge”). But, in any event, Petitioner presents no new factual assertions that save his claims or cure the deficiencies that the Magistrate Judge elaborated upon in the Recommendation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Petitioner’s objections (Doc. # 52) are OVERRULED. 2. The Recommendation (Doc. # 51) is ADOPTED. 3. Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is DENIED with prejudice because the claims therein entitled him to no relief. A final judgment will be entered separately. DONE this 21st day of October, 2015. /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?