McCray v. Cummins et al (INMATE2)
ORDER and OPINION adopting 15 RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge; dismissing Petitioner's habeas claims in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) to the extent they challenge petitioner's 1992 convictions for second degree kidnapping and second degree assault, as he has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing a federal district court to consider his successive habeas application; referring this case back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Ira De Ment on 11/12/09. (br, ) Modified on 11/12/2009 to clarify text (br, ).
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A ST E R N DIVISION R O B E R T L. MCCRAY, #167644 P e t i t io n e r , v. JO H N CUMMINS, WARDEN, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09CV659-ID
O R D E R AND OPINION O n August 17, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case to w h ic h no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. No. 15). Upon an independent review o f the file in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate J u d ge , it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be a n d is hereby ADOPTED and that: 1. P e titio n e r's habeas claims are DISMISSED in accordance with the provisions o f 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) to the extent they challenge petitioner's 1992 c o n vic tio n s for second degree kidnaping and second degree assault, as he has fa iled to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals a u th o riz in g a federal district court to consider his successive habeas a p p li c a ti o n . 2. T h is case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
Done this the 12 th day of November, 2009. /s/ Ira DeMent SENIOR 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?