Johnson v. Holder et al
ORDER that the Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge's Report is hereby ADOPTED, and the Recommendation is ACCEPTED. Consequently, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the above-styled cause is due to be and the same is hereby DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge James H Hancock on 8/17/2012. (JLC)
2012 Aug-17 PM 01:18
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., et al.,
Case No. 4:12-cv-00087-JHH-TMP
On June 28, 2012, the magistrate judge filed his report and recommendation
in the above-styled cause, recommending that this petition for habeas corpus relief
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be denied and dismissed. On June 29, 2012, the
petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file a response or reply to the
government’s motion to dismiss the petition as moot. (Doc. 14). The court granted
the extension and on July 7, 2012, the petitioner filed his response. (Doc. 16). The
petitioner’s response concedes that he has been released from detention, but seeks the
“necessary relief the petitioner Williams Johnson may deserve.” The court has
reviewed the subject petition and concludes that the petitioner has received the
precise relief he sought in the petition – release from custody.
Having now carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation, the Court is of the opinion that
the report is due to be and hereby is ADOPTED, and the recommendation is
ACCEPTED. Consequently, the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the above-styled cause is due to be and the same is hereby
DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
DONE this the
day of August, 2012.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?