Crooks v. Holder et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the petitioner's objections are overruled and the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice as more fully set out in order. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 9/30/2013. (AHI)
2013 Sep-30 PM 04:09
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
RICARDO O’BRIEN CROOKS,
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
PHILIP T. MILLER,
Case No. 4:12-cv-00343-CLS-MHH
This case is before the court on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. no. 1). The magistrate judge filed a report and
recommendation on September 6, 2013. (Doc. no. 26). Petitioner filed objections on
September 11, 2013 and September 16, 2013. (Docs. 28-29).1
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the Court
is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s report is due to be and is hereby
ADOPTED and her recommendation is ACCEPTED. Consequently, petitioner’s
Under the prison mail rule, Mr. Crooks’s objections are deemed filed on the day that he
executed them and gave them to members of the prison staff for mailing. The Clerk of Court
docketed Mr. Crooks’s first set of objections on September 13, 2013. (Doc. no. 28). The Clerk
docketed Mr. Crooks’s supplemental objections on September 18, 2013. (Doc. no. 29).
objections are overruled and the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and
DISMISSED with prejudice.2
DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2013.
United States District Judge
Mr. Crooks attached to his objections to the report and recommendation a “motion to be
assigned counsel.” (Doc. 28, pp. 9-12). Because the Court dismisses Mr. Crooks’s petition, the
Court does not reach his request for appointment of counsel.
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?