Williams v. Giles

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM OPINION-re: R&R 25 . The court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge. The court further ACCEPTS the Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied as to Claims (1),(2), and (14). Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 3/28/2013. (AVC)

FILED
2013 Mar-28 PM 03:37
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CARLOS R. WILLIAMS,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
J. C. GILES, WARDEN, and THE )
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE )
STATE OF ALABAMA,
)
)
Respondents.
)

Case No. 2:10-cv-01069-RDP-HGD

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation was
entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file
objections to the recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. On March 27,
2013, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation and Petitioner’s objections thereto, the court hereby
ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge. The court further ACCEPTS the
Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge that the petition for writ of habeas corpus
be denied as to Claims (1), (2) and (14) asserted by Petitioner.
Page 1 of 3

The legal issues in this case come down to a credibility dispute between
Petitioner and his trial counsel Mike Hanle.

The Magistrate Judge had the

opportunity to observe their respective testimony and assess their believability.
When accepting a Magistrate Judge’s credibility findings, as it does here, the
Supreme Court has made clear that a district court is not required to rehear witness
testimony.1 See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675-76, (1980) (holding that
district court may adopt the credibility findings of a Magistrate Judge without
rehearing the testimony on which a Magistrate Judge based his or her findings and
recommendations). Here, the court finds no reason or basis to disturb the Magistrate
Judge’s credibility findings.
A separate order in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered
contemporaneously herewith.

1

When rejecting a Magistrate Judge’s credibility determinations, a district court must rehear
the disputed testimony. Louis v. Blackburn, 630 F.2d 1105, 1109 (5th Cir.1980). In Bonner v.
Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent
all Fifth Circuit decisions handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Of
course this rule is subject to a small exception in the “rare case” where “there ... [is] found in the
transcript an articulable basis for rejecting the magistrate’s original resolution of credibility and that
basis ... [is] articulated by the district judge.” United States v. Marshall, 609 F.2d 152, 155 (5th
Cir.1980). Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, this is not the “rare case” discussed in Marshall, as the
transcript here provides no basis to reject the Magistrate Judge’s credibility findings and because
here, the court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s credibility determinations.
Page 2 of 3

DONE and ORDERED this

28th

day of March, 2013.

_______________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3