Cherry v. Underwood et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 9/12/2018. (KEK)

FILED
2018 Sep-12 PM 04:29
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JASPER DIVISION
DASHIKI C. CHERRY,

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Petitioner,
v.
JIM UNDERWOOD, et al.,
Respondents.

Case No.: 6:15-cv-1581-MHH-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 11, 2015, petitioner Dashiki C. Cherry filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). Mr. Cherry’s petition
challenges his pretrial bail proceedings in the Circuit Court of Walker County,
Alabama. (Doc. 1, pp. 2, 5).
On August 10, 2018, the magistrate judge filed her report and
recommendation.

(Doc. 17).

The magistrate judge discussed the case’s

background (Doc. 17, pp. 2-4), including Mr. Cherry’s guilty plea and 25-year
sentence. (Doc. 17, pp. 3-4). The magistrate judge discussed the doctrine of
mootness and explained why Mr. Cherry’s conviction, sentence, and incarceration
make his habeas petition concerning pretrial bail moot. (Doc. 17, pp. 4-6). The
magistrate judge recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Cherry’s petition for
this jurisdictional reason. (Doc. 17, p. 6).

The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file written
objections within 14 days. (Doc. 17, pp. 6-7). To date, Mr. Cherry has not
objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and he has not
requested additional time in which to object.
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
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).1
Based on its review of the record in this case, the Court finds no
misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judge’s
factual findings. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and
accepts her recommendation.
The Court will issue a separate dismissal order consistent with this
memorandum opinion.

1

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)(C).
2

DONE this ___ day of September, 2018.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3