Elawad v. Rathman
MEMORANDUM OPINION; In light of this Memorandum Opinion, both 8 11 Motions to Expedite are DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 6/16/2015. (JLC)
2015 Jun-16 AM 09:58
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JOHN T. RATHMAN,
Case No. 1:12-CV-3783-VEH-SGC
On May 8, 2015, the magistrate judge filed a report recommending that the
relief sought in this matter be denied. (Doc. 10). In particular, the magistrate judge
found: (1) to the extent Petitioner invokes 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the court lacked
jurisdiction; and (2) to the extent Petitioner invoked 28 U.S.C. § 2241, his claims
were without merit. (Id. at 6). The magistrate judge further recommended denial of
a certificate of appealability to the extent Petitioner invoked 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The
parties were allowed an opportunity to file objections but neither party has done so.1
Three days after entry of the report and recommendation Petitioner signed a motion to
expedite ruling on this matter. (Doc. 11). This motion, apparently mailed before Petitioner
received the report and recommendation, mirrored an earlier motion to expedite (Doc. 8) filed
before entry of the report and recommendation. Nowhere in Petitioner’s most recent motion to
expedite does he refer or object to the report and recommendation. Accordingly, in light of this
memorandum opinion, both motions to expedite (Docs. 8, 11) are DENIED as MOOT.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, the Court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s findings are due to be and
are hereby ADOPTED and her recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, this
matter is due to be denied and dismissed.
A Final Judgment will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this the 16th day of June, 2015.
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
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?