Roberts v. Thomas et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Karon O Bowdre on 8/28/13. (SAC )
2013 Aug-28 PM 02:14
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
THOMAS JAMES ROBERTS,
WILLIE THOMAS, Warden, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
Case No. 3:13-cv-01397-KOB-HGD
On August 14, 2013, the magistrate judge entered his report and
recommendation (doc. 4), recommending that the court dismiss this action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) as a successive application for habeas relief. The
magistrate judge also recommends that the court dismiss the action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) because the Petitioner failed to secure an Order from the
Eleventh Circuit allowing him to file a successive petition. On August 23, 2013, the
Petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Page 1 of 2
The court has conducted a de novo review of the entire record in this case,
including the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and the petitioner’s
objections. The court hereby ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge, with the
exception of noting that the Petitioner filed this habeas corpus petition on July 26,
2013 as noted in his objections, rather than June 4, 2013 as stated in the report. The
court further ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s recommendations that the petition for
writ of habeas corpus is due to be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) and
for failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The court finds that the
Petitioner’s habeas petition is successive pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) and that
he failed to obtain the Eleventh’s Circuit’s permission before filing this successive
petition in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
The court will enter a separate Order in conformity with this Memorandum
DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of August, 2013.
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 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?