Ramirez v. Rathman
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 4/1/2016. (AVC)
2016 Apr-01 PM 03:56
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JASON JOHN RAMIREZ,
JOHN T. RATHMAN,
Case No.: 2:12-cv-03580-WMA-SGC
This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 by Jason John Ramirez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se. (Doc.
1). The magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation on March 1, 2016,
recommending Ramirez’s § 2241 petition be denied to the extent it challenges the
Bureau of Prisons’s computation of his aggregate sentence and dismissed to the
extent it alleges a substantive sentencing error. (Doc. 10). The magistrate judge
further recommended Ramirez’s requests for appointment of counsel and a hearing
be denied. (Id.). Ramirez was afforded fourteen (14) days to file objections to the
report and recommendation. (See id.). More than fourteen (14) days have passed,
and the court has received no objections from Ramirez.1
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, Ramirez’s requests for appointment of counsel and
a hearing are DENIED. Furthermore, Ramirez’s § 2241 petition is DENIED to the
extent it challenges the Bureau of Prisons’s computation of his aggregate sentence
and DISMISSED to the extent it alleges a substantive sentencing error. A final
judgment will be entered.
DONE this the 1st day of April, 2016.
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
A copy of the report and recommendation was mailed to Ramirez by the
court on March 2, 2016 but was returned as UNDELIVERABLE on March 29,
2016 (Doc. 11). Ramirez has failed to provide the court a new address.
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?