Klatch v. Rathman
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 2/10/14. (SAC )
2014 Feb-10 PM 01:26
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ANTHONY J. KLATCH, II,
JOHN RATHMAN, Warden,
CIVIL ACTION NOS.
This is an action on a habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a
federal prisoner acting pro se, Anthony J. Klatch, II (“Klatch”). (Doc.1 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”)).
Klatch challenges a decision of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to grant him less than the
maximum 12 months authorized in a halfway house under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1). The
Government filed a response in opposition, arguing that this court lacks jurisdiction because
Klatch failed to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 12). On January 3, 2014, the magistrate
judge entered a report concluding that failure to exhaust such remedies is not a jurisdictional
defect. (Doc. 15). Nonetheless, the magistrate judge recommended that, regardless of whether
Klatch had exhausted administrative remedies, his habeas petition is due to be denied because his
claims fail on the merits. (Id.) No objections have been filed.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file,
including the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, the court is of the opinion that
References herein to “Doc(s). __” are to the document numbers assigned by the Clerk of the Court to the
pleadings, motions, and other materials in the court file, as reflected on the docket sheet in the court’s Case
Management/Electronic Case Files system.
the magistrate judge’s report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is
ACCEPTED. Accordingly, Klatch’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 is
due to be DENIED. A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this the 10th day of February, 2014.
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
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?