Thomas v. Price et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 11/19/2012. (AHI)

Download PDF
FILED 2012 Nov-19 AM 10:56 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION LARRY THOMAS, Petitioner, vs. WARDEN PRICE, Warden, and the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No: CV 12-S-2944-E MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a habeas corpus case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by an Alabama state prisoner, Larry Thomas, pro se. (Doc. 1). Thomas is currently serving a life sentence without parole, imposed upon his conviction for first degree robbery in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama, in April 2000. On September 17, 2012, the magistrate judge entered an order requiring the petitioner to show cause why this action is not due to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). (Doc. 4). After Thomas filed a response (Doc. 5), the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) recommending that this action is indeed due to be dismissed as successive. (Doc. 6). The magistrate judge’s report advised Thomas that he might file objections thereto within 14 days, but no objections have been filed. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s findings are due to be, and they hereby are, ADOPTED, and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. Consequently, the petition is due to be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). A separate final judgment will be entered. DONE this 19th day of November, 2012. ______________________________ 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?