Mosely v. Estes et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows that: 1) the Petitioner's 39 objections are OVERRULED; 2) the 35 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 3) the 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2254 is denied; and 4) this case is DISMISSED with prejudice; A final judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 5/28/2020. (amf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
TRAVIS C. MOSELY, # 225852,
Petitioner,
v.
DEWAYNE ESTES, WARDEN, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:17-cv-418-ECM
)
(WO)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Now pending before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that
the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied and this case
be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 35). On May 8, 2020, the Petitioner filed objections to
the Recommendation. (Doc. 39). The Court has carefully reviewed the record in this case,
including the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the Petitioner’s
objections.
When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the
district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires that the district court independently consider factual
issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507,
513 (11th Cir. 1990). See also United States v. Gopie, 347 F. App’x 495, 499 n.1 (11th Cir.
2009). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation must

be sufficiently specific in order to warrant de novo review. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208
F. App’x 781, 783-85 (11th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is
reviewed for clear error. Id.
In his objections, the Petitioner simply objects to the Report and Recommendation
without any specificity and without stating the bases for his objections. See Doc. 39.
Consequently, the Petitioner’s objections are reviewed for clear error, and the Court finds
that they are due to be overruled. The well-reasoned Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge effectively address all of the Petitioner’s claims. Accordingly, upon an independent
review of the file in this case, and for good cause, it is
ORDERED as follows that:
1.

the Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED;

2.

the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 35) is ADOPTED;

3.

the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied;
and

4.

this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

A final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 28th day of May, 2020.

/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE