Brown v. State of Alabama et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 6/16/2016. (PSM)

Download PDF
FILED 2016 Jun-16 PM 01:18 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION JAMES BRENT BROWN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 5:16-cv-0680-LSC-JEO MEMORANDUM OPINION On or about April 27, 2016, James Brent Brown, an Alabama state prisoner acting pro se, filed this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). On May 19, 2016, the magistrate judge to whom the case was referred for preliminary review entered a report and recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. 4). Specifically, he recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because Brown’s petition amounts to a successive § 2254 application for which he lacks an authorizing order from the Eleventh Circuit, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and Rule 9 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Habeas Cases. (Doc. 4). Brown has now filed a timely objection to the R&R. (Doc. 5). Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and the petitioner’s objections thereto, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. While Petitioner has objected to the R&R, it suffices to say that those objections are frivolous and that the points he attempts to raise are adequately addressed by the R&R. Accordingly, Brown’s objections are OVERRULED. Brown’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is due to be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for lack of jurisdiction. A separate Final Judgment will be entered. Done this 16th day of June 2016. L. SCOTT COOGLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 182184 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?