Coleman v. Brooks et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 6/30/2015. (KEK) [Transferred from Alabama Northern on 7/1/2015.]

FILED
2015 Jun-30 PM 03:44
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
JUSTIN DERON COLEMAN,

}
}
Petitioner,
}
v.
}
}
BEN BROOKS, Judge, Circuit Court }
in Mobile, et al.,
}
}
Respondents,
}

Case No.: 4:15-cv-00681-MHH-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On June 15, 2015, Chief Magistrate Judge John Ott entered a report and
recommendation (Doc. 7) concerning Mr. Coleman’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas
petition.1 In his report, Judge Ott recommended that the Court transfer this action
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama because
Mr. Coleman challenges a decision by the Circuit Court of Mobile County,
Alabama to revoke his probation and re-impose a state prison sentence. Judge Ott
explained to the parties that they had fourteen days in which to file objections to
the recommendation. (Doc. 7, pp. 3-4). Neither party has filed objections.
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).
1

Mr. Coleman’s complaint invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Doc. 1). On June 5, 2015, Judge Ott
entered an order construing Mr. Coleman’s complaint as a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because Mr. Coleman seeks dismissal of his probation violation
and release from custody. (Doc. 5).

When a party makes timely objections to a Report and Recommendation, the
district court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.
When no party objects, the district court need not conduct a de novo review.
Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also United States
v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), cert. denied, 464 U.S.
1050 (1984) (“The failure to object to the magistrate’s findings of fact prohibits an
attack on appeal of the factual findings adopted by the district court except on
grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.”) (internal citation omitted).

In

Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006), the Eleventh
Circuit stated:
Most circuits agree that “[i]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a
district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must
only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted);
accord Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.1999)
(“If no objection or only partial objection is made [to the magistrate
judge’s report], the district court judge reviews those unobjected
portions for clear error.”); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219,
1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (noting that the “clearly erroneous” standard is
appropriate where there has been no objection to the magistrate
judge’s ruling); Drywall Tapers & Pointers v. Local 530, 889 F.2d
389, 395 (2d Cir. 1989) (“Where a magistrate [judge] has been
appointed to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the district court reviews
the Report and Recommendation under the same clearly erroneous
standard.”) (citing Wooldridge v. Marlene Indus. Corp., 875 F.2d 540,
544 (6th Cir. 1989)).
2

Id.

The Eleventh Circuit does not appear to have expressly held that a district

court should review a report and recommendation for plain error in the absence of
objections; however, other courts in this Circuit have adopted such a position.
Tauber v. Barnhart, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1373 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (“[I]ssues upon
which no specific objections are raised do not so require de novo review; the
district court may therefore accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge, applying a clearly
erroneous standard.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Am. Charities for
Reasonable Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Pinellas County, 278 F. Supp. 2d
1301, 1307 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (“[W]hen no timely and specific objections are filed,
case law indicates that the court should review the findings using a clearly
erroneous standard.”); Shuler v. Infinity Property & Gas, 2013 WL 1346615, at *1
(N.D. Ala. March 29, 2013) (portions of a report and recommendation “to which
no objections is filed are reviewed only for clear error”).
The Court has reviewed the record and Chief Magistrate Judge Ott’s report
and recommendation. (Doc. 7). Applying the clearly erroneous standard, the
Court ADOPTS the June 15, 2015 report and ACCEPTS Judge Ott’s
recommendation that the Court transfer this action to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Alabama. The Court will enter a separate order
consistent with this memorandum opinion.
3

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to please mail a copy of this memorandum
opinion to Mr. Coleman.
DONE and ORDERED this June 30, 2015.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4