Davis v. Holder et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 5/30/2013. (MSN)

Download PDF
FILED 2013 May-30 PM 03:55 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA RAPHIEL R. DAVIS, Petitioner, v. ERIC HOLDER, Jr., et al. Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action Number 4:12-cv-02524-LSC-JEO MEMORANDUM OPINION Raphiel R. Davis (“Davis” or “Petitioner”) seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review of the lawfulness of his detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) pending his removal to Guyana. (Doc.1 1). The magistrate judge to whom the action was referred for preliminary review entered a report recommending that Davis’s habeas petition be denied and that the action be dismissed but without prejudice, allowing Davis to refile after 60 days should the Government still prove unable to remove him assuming his continued cooperation and despite the lack of pending legal proceedings. (Doc. 20). No objections have been filed. Having 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 magistrate judge's report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, Davis’s habeas petition is due to be DENIED and that the action is due to be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with leave to allowing Davis to refile after sixty (60) 1 References herein to “Doc(s). __” are to the document numbers assigned by the Clerk of the Court to the pleadings, motions, and other materials in the court file, as reflected on the docket sheet. days. A separate final order will be entered. Done this 30th day of May 2013. L. Scott Coogler United States District Judge [160704] 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?