Hall v. United States of America

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 12/11/2017. (KEK)

FILED
2017 Dec-11 AM 10:06
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JERMAINE HALL,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 2:17-cv-00731-MHH-SGC
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 20, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a report in which she
recommended that the Court dismiss petitioner Jermaine Hall’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition for writ of habeas corpus because Mr. Hall has not been incarcerated in this
district, and therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the petition. (Doc.
3). 1 The magistrate judge informed Mr. Hall of his right to object within 14 days.
(Doc. 3, pp. 3-4). To date, Mr. Hall has not filed objections to the report and
recommendation.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A

1

In her report, the magistrate judge explained that a court may transfer a § 2241 petition to the
proper district court, but the magistrate judge concluded that doing so here would not serve the
interests of justice because in this § 2241 action, Mr. Hall seeks to re-litigate § 2255 claims that the
sentencing court dismissed as time-barred and without merit. (Doc. 3, pp. 2-3). If Mr. Hall wishes
to attempt to pursue his arguments under Mathis v. v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 136 S. Ct. 2243
(2016), he must file with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals a request for permission to file a
successive § 2255 petition.

district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain error
factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779
n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th Cir. 1988);
Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). 2
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s
report, the Court ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge and ACCEPTS her
recommendations. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss without prejudice this petition
for writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court will enter a separate final order.
DONE and ORDERED this December 11, 2017.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

When a party objects to a report in which a magistrate judge recommends dismissal of the action,
a district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B)(C).
2