Hatcher v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 62

ORDER: construing Petitioner's 61 Traverse Motion to Government's Response as an objection to the 58 Recommendation; it is ORDERED as follows: 1) Petitioner's objection (Doc. # 61 ) is OVERRULED; 2) The Recommendation (Doc. # 58 ) is ADOPTED; and 3) This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Signed by Honorable Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/23/2019. (cnw, )

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 August 5, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation. (Doc.
# 58.)

Petitioner was granted an extension of time to file objections to the

Recommendation. (Doc. # 60.) On September 16, 2019, Petitioner’s motion, which
is styled, “Traverse Motion to Government’s Response,” was docketed. (Doc. # 61.)
This motion will be construed as an objection to the Recommendation.
In his objection, however, Petitioner does not refute the Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings and recommendations. He does not address the proposed finding
that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking because his “motion to submit newly
discovered evidence” amounts to a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for which
he “has not obtained the required authorization from the appellate court.” (Doc.
# 58, at 3.) Notwithstanding Petitioner’s failure to “specifically identify the factual
findings or legal conclusions in the Recommendation” to which he objects (Doc.

# 58, at 4), the court has reviewed the Recommendation de novo review and concurs
with its proposed findings and recommendations. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as
follows:
(1)

Petitioner’s objection (Doc. # 61) is OVERRULED;

(2)

The Recommendation (Doc. # 58) is ADOPTED; and

(3)

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction.
Final judgment will be entered separately. Petitioner is not required to obtain
a certificate of appealability to appeal this court’s judgment, should he desire to do
so, because it is not “‘a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding’” within the
meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Hubbard v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th
Cir. 2004) (quoting § 2253(c)).
DONE this 23rd day of September, 2019.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2