Reed v. Bender et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 4/9/15. (SAC )

FILED
2015 Apr-09 PM 12:27
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RANDY REED,
Petitioner,
vs.
ROXANNA BENDER, Director,
et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.2:14-cv-01559-WMA-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 6, 2015, the magistrate judge entered a report
recommending this petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by pro se petitioner Randy Reed (“Petitioner”)
be

denied

and

dismissed

without

prejudice.

(Doc.

11).

Specifically, the magistrate judge found that much of the relief
sought by Petitioner could not be granted via a writ of habeas
corpus.

(Doc. 11 at 5-6).

Furthermore, to the extent the relief

sought could be granted, the magistrate judge found the claims to
be time-barred.

(Id.).

Although he was afforded fourteen (14) days to object to the
report and recommendation, Petitioner filed nothing within that
period.

(Doc. 11 at 6).

Instead, Petitioner filed a notice

addressed to the Clerk of Court and signed on March 3, 2015–nearly
a month after the report and recommendation was filed.

(Doc. 12).

The notice does not specifically present any objections to the
report and recommendation but instead requests a blank § 2254 form.
This request appears to be related to the order to show cause

entered

by

the

magistrate

judge

prior

to

the

report

and

recommendation. The show cause order, which noted the deficiencies
upon which the report and recommendation later relied, offered
Petitioner the alternative of amending the petition; a blank § 2254
form was attached to the order.
order

to

show

cause,

(Doc. 9).

Petitioner

filed

a

In response to the
pleading

which

was

substantially similar to his initial petition and which did not
address the deficiencies noted by the magistrate judge. (Doc. 10).
Accordingly, because any amendment would appear to be futile and
because the time to amend has passed, Petitioner’s request for a
blank § 2254 form is DENIED.
After consideration of the entire court file and the report
and recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the report of the
magistrate judge and ACCEPTS her recommendations.
Petitioner’s

filing

of

March

6,

2015,

could

To the extent

be

construed

as

interposing objections, any objections are OVERRULED; to the extent
the

filing

could

be

construed

as

a

motion,

it

is

DENIED.

Accordingly, the petition will be denied and Petitioner’s claims
will be dismissed without prejudice.

For the reasons set forth in

the report and recommendation, a certificate of appealability is
DENIED.
A separate order will be entered.

2

Done this 9th day of April, 2015.

_____________________________
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3