Dean v. Bedsole et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION - After consideration of the record in this case, the Court adopts the magistrate judge's report and accepts her recommendations. By separate order, the Court will deny Mr. Dean's petition for habeas relief and dismiss his petition with prejudice. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 10/13/2020. (KEK)

FILED
2020 Oct-13 AM 11:33
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES EDWARD DEAN,
Petitioner,
v.
CAPTAIN RUSSELL BEDSOLE, et
al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:19-cv-01567-MHH-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On August 24, 2020, the magistrate judge entered a report in which she
recommended that the Court deny petitioner James Edward Dean’s request for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 8). The magistrate judge
notified the parties of their right to file objections within 14 days, (Doc. 8); no
objections appear in the record.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the
[magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(3)
(“The district judge must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation.”). Although § 636(b)(1) “does not require the [district] judge to

review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review
by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any
other standard.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985).
The Court has reviewed the record and agrees that the Court should deny Mr.
Dean’s habeas petition. The Court notes that Mr. Dean’s federal due process
arguments seem to extend not only to the original sentence that Judge Simpson
imposed but also to Judge Simpson’s authority to hear his case. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-9, ¶¶
5, 19). Because Mr. Dean did not raise a federal due process challenge to Judge
Simpson’s authority in his state court proceedings (Docs. 1-4, 1-6), he may not
present the challenge now in this federal habeas proceeding. (Doc. 8).
After consideration of the record in this case, the Court adopts the magistrate
judge’s report and accepts her recommendations. By separate order, the Court will
deny Mr. Dean’s petition for habeas relief and dismiss his petition with prejudice.
The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
DONE and ORDERED this October 13, 2020.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2