Roberts v. Thomas et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 9/10/2012. (KAM, )
2012 Sep-10 AM 11:35
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. 5:12-cv-01080-SLB-HGD
On May 24, 2012, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was
entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file
objections to the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. On June 4, 2012,
petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
In his objections, petitioner asserts that the claims in the instant petition for
writ of habeas corpus are based on newly discovered evidence and that such evidence
establishes by clear and convincing evidence that, but for the constitutional error
claimed, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the underlying
offense. However, a review of his allegations in this action and his allegations in the
Page 1 of 2
previous habeas corpus petitions he has filed demonstrates that his claims are not
based on newly discovered evidence and that, in fact, petitioner has raised the same
claims in previous petitions.
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation and the petitioner’s objections thereto, the court hereby
ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge. The court further ACCEPTS the
recommendations of the magistrate judge that the petition for writ of habeas corpus
be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) and (2) and, in the alternative, for
failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
A separate order in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered
DONE this 9th day of September, 2012.
SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
CHIEF 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?