Hatcher v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 41

ORDER that: 1. Hatcher's 40 Objections are OVERRULED; 2. The 33 Recommendation is ADOPTED; 3. Hatcher's 28 U.S.C. 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his sentence is DENIED; and 4. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A final judgment will be entered separately. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 5/10/2017. (dmn, )

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

DANIEL LAMAR HATCHER,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-880-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
On March 13, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. #
33) to which Petitioner Daniel Hatcher timely objected (Doc. # 40). Upon an
independent and de novo review of the record and Recommendation, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b), and upon due consideration of Petitioner’s objections, the
Recommendation is due to be adopted.
Hatcher’s objections raise two arguments. The first is an access-to-courts
argument that this court already rejected in a separate case. See Hatcher v. Carter,
No. 2:16-cv-687-WKW (M.D. Ala. Apr. 24, 2017) (rejecting as time-barred an
identical argument, raised in a Bivens action). Petitioner asserts no new reason to
find the argument meritorious. As goes the familiar legal aphorism, litigants get
only one bite at the apple. Thus, Hatcher’s first objection fails.

Hatcher’s second objection also is meritless. Acting pro se, Petitioner asserts
“that this is a[n] article IV court,” adding that, in determining Petitioner’s case, the
court exceeded “its territorial article IV jurisdiction” and thus “committed FRAUD
and TREASON.” (Doc. # 40.) Petitioner is wrong. Article III of the United States
Constitution vests the “judicial power of the United States” in the Supreme Court
“and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish.” U.S. Const. art III, § 1. This is one such court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 81,
132.
Petitioner’s other arguments are not responsive to the Recommendation, and,
in any event, the Recommendation’s conclusions are correct. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that:
1.

Hatcher’s objections (Doc. # 40) are OVERRULED;

2.

The Recommendation (Doc. # 33) is ADOPTED;

3.

Hatcher’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his

sentence (Doc. # 1) is DENIED; and
4.

This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

A final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 10th day of May, 2017.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2