Hatfield v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
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, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES OF
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-324-WKW
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
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
Petitioner’s objections (Doc. # 52) are OVERRULED.
The Recommendation (Doc. # 51) is ADOPTED.
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
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?