Perkins v. Estes et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 6/11/2018. (KAM)
2018 Jun-11 PM 02:03
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
TIMMY GEORGE PERKINS,
WARDEN II DEWAYNE ESTES, et al.,
On April 16, 2018, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 5),
recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice. No
objections have been filed.1 The court has considered the entire file in this action, together with
the report and recommendation, and has reached an independent conclusion that the report and
recommendation is due to be adopted and approved.
Accordingly, the court hereby adopts and approves the findings and recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this court. The petition for writ of habeas
corpus is due to be DISMISSED. A separate Order will be entered.
On May 28, 2018, Petitioner submitted an affidavit. (Doc. 6). Petitioner’s objections to
the report and recommendation were due by April 30, 2018. (See Doc. 5 at 4). To the extent
Petitioner’s affidavit could be construed as an objection to the report and recommendation, it is
untimely. Even considering the substance of the affidavit, though, it does not appear to relate to
the report and recommendation at all. The Magistrate Judge recommended the petition be
dismissed as successive. (See Doc. 5). Instead of addressing the successiveness issue, Petitioner
argues in his affidavit that he is entitled to a new trial because inconsistent evidence was presented
at his original trial (see Doc. 6), which is the merits of his first ground for habeas relief (see Doc.
1 at 5). The affidavit does not change the court’s conclusion that the petition is due to be dismissed
DONE and ORDERED this June 11, 2018.
R. DAVID PROCTOR
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?