Watts v. Dunn

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 12/26/2017. (KEK)

FILED
2017 Dec-27 AM 08:44
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANTOINE RAY WATTS,

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 2:17-cv-898-MHH-TMP
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
JEFF DUNN, COMMISSIONER,
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 7, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he
recommended that the Court deny and dismiss petitioner Antione Ray Watts’s 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus because the petition is time-barred
and because equitable tolling does not apply under the circumstances of this case.
(Doc. 8). The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file objections
within 14 days. (Doc. 8, pp. 10-11). On November 20, 2017, Mr. Watts filed
objections to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 9).
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).
When a party objects to a report and recommendation, the district court must “make
1

a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. The Court reviews
for plain error proposed factual findings to which no objection is made, and the
Court reviews propositions of law de novo. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779
n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir.
1983) (per curiam), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984) (“The failure to object to the
magistrate’s findings of fact prohibits an attack on appeal of the factual findings
adopted by the district court except on grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.”)
(internal citation omitted); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir.
2006).
Mr. Watts objects to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations
concerning equitable tolling and ineffective assistnce of counsel “for the same
reasons set out in detail in” his petition (Doc. 1) and his response to the respondent’s
motion to dismiss (Doc. 7). (Doc. 9). Mr. Watts does not make specific objections
to the magistrate judge’s factual findings, and the Court finds no plain error in the
magistrate judge’s description of the relevant facts. For the reasons stated in the
magistrate judge’s November 7, 2017 report, the Court concludes that equitable
tolling does not save Mr. Watts’s claim. (See Doc. 8, pp. 8-10). Because the
magistrate judge recommends dismissal of this action as time-barred, the magistrate
2

judge did not address the merits of Mr. Watts’s ineffective assistance of counsel
claim. Therefore, Mr. Watts’s objections on this point are moot.
Having reviewed and considered the materials in the court file, the Court
adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation. The Court
will enter a separate order dismissing with prejudice Mr. Watts’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus.
DONE and ORDERED this December 26, 2017.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3