Butler v. Estes et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 4/24/15. (SAC )
2015 Apr-24 AM 11:26
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
LARRY LEE BUTLER,
WARDEN DEWAYNE ESTES,
This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
2241 and 2254 by Larry Lee Butler (“Petitioner” or “Butler”), an Alabama state prisoner acting
pro se. (Doc.1 1). On April 6, 2015, the magistrate judge entered a report pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(1) recommending that the action be dismissed as untimely
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). (Doc. 8, (“Report and Recommendation” or “R&R”)). Butler has
now filed an Objection to the R&R. (Doc. 9 (“Objection or “Obj.”)).
About half of Butler’s 21-page objection is based on an assumption that the magistrate
judge, rather than an Article III district judge, has ruled on his § 2254 habeas application. (See
Obj. at 1-11). That line of argument is misguided, of course, because the magistrate judge has
merely made a recommendation that the habeas application be denied as time barred; the final,
References herein to “Doc(s). __” are to the document numbers assigned by the Clerk of the
Court to the materials in the court file, as reflected on the docket sheet in the CM/ECF system.
Unless otherwise noted, Pinpoint citations herein are to the page of the electronically filed
document, which may not correspond to the pagination on the original “hard copy.”
formal decision as to any disposition lies with the undersigned district judge. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153 (1985); Williams v.
McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (2009).
Butler also makes a number of other arguments. It will suffice to say, however, that those
are adequately addressed by the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. Having
carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the
magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and Petitioner’s Objection 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. Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED. As a result,
the petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be denied and this action is due to DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE, as barred by the statute of limitations. Further, because the petition does
not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, a certificate of appealability is also
due to be DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000);
Rule 11(a), RULES GOVERNING § 2254 PROCEEDINGS. A separate Final Judgment will be
DONE, this the 24th day of April, 2015.
WILLIAM M. ACKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?