Keeton v. Odom

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 4/24/2018. (KEK)

FILED
2018 Apr-24 AM 11:23
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
DARREN OWEN KEETON,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN WILLIE THOMAS,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 7:16-cv-1544-MHH-TMP
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 15, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he
recommended that the Court dismiss without prejudice petitioner Darren Owen
Keeton’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief because Mr. Keeton
failed to exhaust his state court remedies. (Doc. 20). 1 The magistrate judge
advised the parties of their right to file specific written objections within 14 days.
(Doc. 20, p. 5).

To date, no party has filed an objection to the report and

recommendation.2

1

The introduction to the Sepetmber 15, 2017 report states that this is a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas
action. (Doc. 20, p. 1). The conclusion of the report states that this is a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action.
(Doc. 20, p. 4). On September 27, 2016, the magistrate judge entered an order construing Mr.
Keeton’s complaint as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because
Mr. Keeton challenges the length of his confinement. (Doc. 3). Therefore, the reference to §
2241 in the September 15, 2017 report seems to be a typographical error.

2

On September 15, 2017, the Clerk mailed a copy of the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation to Mr. Keeton at his address of record. (See September 15, 2017 staff note).

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).3
The Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in
the magistrate judge’s description of the relevant facts.4 Therefore, the Court
adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation.
The Court will enter a separate final order dismissing this case without
prejudice.
On October 5, 2017, the postal service returned to the Court as undeliverable Mr. Keeton’s copy of
the report and recommendation. (Doc. 21). On October 5, 2017, the Court searched the
Alabama Department of Correction’s inmate locator database. A search for Mr. Keeton produced
no results. It is Mr. Keeton’s responsibility to notify the Clerk in writing of any address change.
(See Doc. 1, p. 1).
3

When a party objects to a report in which a magistrate judge recommends dismissal of a claim, 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).
4

In his report, the magistrate judge stated: “The respondents argue that petitioner still has a
remedy in the state courts by which he can receive state review of the claim: by filing an
appropriate petition for habeas relief in the state court, or by filing a common law petition for writ
of certiorari in the state courts and, as necessary, pursuing the appellate process.” (Doc. 20, p. 4).
Although the Court acknowledges that Mr. Keeton may file a petition for writ of certiorari, Mr.
Keeton also may file a renewed petition for writ of mandamus in the Alabama Court of Criminal
appeals because the state trial court has not responded to Mr. Keeton’s initial mandamus petition.
(See Doc. 4, pp. 2-3).
2

DONE and ORDERED this April 24, 2018.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3