Fields v. Hetzel et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 9/23/15. (SAC )
2015 Sep-23 PM 02:16
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
GARY HETZEL, Warden III and
HONORABLE LUTHER STRANGE,
Attorney General of the State of
Case No.: 2:12-cv-02912-WMA-SGC
On September 1, 2015, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending
Curtis Fields’s motion to amend his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be granted as to the first two additional allegations and
denied as to the third additional allegation. (Doc. 14). The magistrate judge further
recommended the first and third claims raised in Fields’s § 2254 petition be denied
and the second be dismissed. (Id.). Finally, in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases, the magistrate judge recommended a certificate of
appealability be denied. (Id.).
On September 14, 2015, Fields submitted a letter stating the trial court judge
or his attorney “didn’t follow through about talking or seeing someone at Pardon and
Paroles before [he] was sentenced and sent to prison.” (Doc. 15). Fields further
states he has been calling and writing his attorney, who continues to tell him he has
not yet done enough time. (Id.). Finally, Fields states he decided not to contact his
attorney any more because his attorney and the court have abandoned him. (Id.). The
court construes Fields’s letter and its contents as objections to the report and
recommendation. These objections are restatements of claims Fields has already
presented. The magistrate judge considered and rejected those claims, and Fields’s
restatement of them does not alter the recommendation made by the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, Fields’s objections are OVERRULED.
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s
report, the court ADOPTS that report and ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s
recommendations. Accordingly, Fields’s motion to amend his § 2254 petition is
GRANTED as to the first two additional allegations and DENIED as to the third
additional allegation. Furthermore, the first and third claims raised in Fields’s § 2254
petition are DENIED, and the second is DISMISSED. Finally, for the reasons set
forth in the report and recommendation and pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
A final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 23rd day of September, 2015.
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?