Cole v. Cardwell et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 12/15/2017. (KEK)

FILED
2017 Dec-15 PM 12:17
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
AARON CORDERO COLE,
Petitioner,
v.
SCOTT CARDWELL, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
) Case No.: 4:17-cv-00149-MHH-SGC
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 26, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a report in which she
recommended that the Court dismiss petitioner Aaron Cordero Cole’s 28 U.S.C. §
2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus because Mr. Cole has not exhausted his
state court remedies. (Doc. 7).1 The magistrate judge informed Mr. Cole that he
had a right to object to the report within 14 days. (Doc. 7, pp. 5-6). To date, Mr.
Cole has not filed objections to the report and recommendation.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain
error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d
1

In the report, the magistrate judge stated, alternatively, that Mr. Cole failed to state a claim for
habeas relief in his petition. (Doc. 7). The Court does not reach the alternative finding because
the Court dismisses this petition based on Mr. Cole’s failure to exhaust state court remedies that
were available to him.

776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749
(11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).2
The Court finds no errors of law or fact in the magistrate judge’s conclusion
that Alabama provides a process for challenging a parole revocation, and Mr. Cole
did not use that process to exhaust his challenges to the revocation before he filed
his federal habeas petition. (Doc. 7, pp. 2-3). Therefore, the Court will dismiss
Mr. Cole’s § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus for failure to exhaust state
court remedies.
The Court will enter a separate final order.
DONE and ORDERED this December 15, 2017.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

When a party objects to a report in which a magistrate judge recommends dismissal of the
action, a district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §§
636(b)(1)(B)-(C).
2