Jordan v. Barrett et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 29

ORDER directing as follows: (1) petitioner's 28 Objections are OVERRULED; (2) ADOPTING 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge; (3) the petition for habeas corpus relief is DENIED; and (4) this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 7/7/17. (djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION LATORIA D. JORDAN, Petitioner, v. BOBBY BARRETT and STEVEN T. MARSHALL, 1 Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:15-CV-135-WKW [WO] ORDER Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 23), to which Petitioner LaToria D. Jordan has filed objections (Doc. # 28). 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). In her objection, Ms. Jordan takes issue with nearly every aspect of the Recommendation. The objection largely repeats arguments Ms. Jordan already presented to the Magistrate Judge, often misstating the legal principles that guide habeas review. Because the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation properly applies the law to the facts of this case, Ms. Jordan’s objections are due to be overruled. 1 Ms. Jordan’s petition named the former Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Luther Strange, as a respondent. Steven Marshall succeeded Mr. Strange in that office and, therefore, “is automatically substituted as a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Petitioner LaToria D. Jordan’s objections (Doc. # 28) are OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 23) is ADOPTED; 3. The petition for habeas corpus relief filed by Petitioner LaToria D. Jordan is DENIED; and 4. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A final judgment will be entered separately. DONE this 7th day of July, 2017. /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?