Hammell v. Gordy et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 12/21/2018. (AFS)
FILED
2018 Dec-21 AM 11:23
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HARRELL HAMMELL,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER GORDY, Warden, et
al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 2:18-cv-00758-AKK-JEO
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner Harrell Hammell filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus, pro
se, on May 18, 2018. Doc. 1. Hammell challenges his September 2009 conviction
and sentence for capital murder. Id. On November 28, 2018, the magistrate judge
entered a report recommending the petition be dismissed with prejudice becuase
Hammell’s claims are untimely and procedurally defaulted.
Doc. 6.
The
magistrate judge notified Hammell of his right to file objections to the report and
recommendation. See id. at 12-13. In response, Hammell filed a document titled
“Amended Complaint,” which the court construes as an opposition to the report
and recommendation.1 Doc. 7.
1
After receipt of the respondent’s answer, Hammell was advised of his right to file materials in
opposition. Doc. 4. He submitted a signed and dated copy of his original petition. Doc. 5. In
response to the report and recommendation, Hammell filed an “Amended Complaint,” doc. 7,
which is substantially the same petition filed a third time. It raises no new claims and no
objections to the report and recommendation.
1
Hammell disputes neither the finding that this petition is untimely under the
one-year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), nor the finding that his
current grounds for relief are procedurally defaulted. Rather, he once again details
perceived constitutional errors he contends occurred during his arrest and
prosecution for the underlying convictions.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation and the response thereto, the
magistrate judge’s report is hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is
ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Further, because the petition does not
present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, a certificate of
appealability is also due to be DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254
Proceedings. A separate Final Judgment will be entered.
DONE the 21st day of December, 2018.
_________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?