Williams v. Apker

Filing 44

ORDER denied as moot 42 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 43 Report and Recommendations. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is Denied and this action is hereby Dismissed, Judgment is entered.. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 7/11/2012.(JKM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Clifford Williams,
Petitioner,

10
11

vs.

12

Craig Apker,

13

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 09-508-TUC-FRZ (DTF)
ORDER

14
15
16

Before the Court for consideration is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

17

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a Person in Federal Custody, filed pro se by Petitioner Clifford

18

Williams, presently confined in the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) - Manchester,

19

Kentucky, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and the Report and Recommendation of the

20

Magistrate Judge, recommending that this Court enter an order summarily dismissing the

21

Petition for lack of jurisdiction.

22

This action was referred to Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco, pursuant to the

23

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Rule 72, Fed.R.Civ.P., and Local Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of

24

the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, for

25

further proceedings and report and recommendation.

26

Magistrate Judge Velasco issued his Report and Recommendation, recommending that

27

the Court enter an order dismissing the Petition based on his finding that the Court lacks

28

jurisdiction to entertain the collateral attack on Petitioner’s sentence.

1

The Report and Recommendation sets forth the factual and procedural history of the

2

proceedings and conviction at issue, including the transfer of this case to this Court from the

3

District Court for the District of Columbia, and provides a thorough legal analysis of the

4

claims at issue.

5

The Report and Recommendation further advised, “[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b),

6

any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen days after being served with

7

a copy of this Report and Recommendation ...” and that “[i]f objections are not timely filed,

8

then the parties' right to de novo review by the District Court may be deemed waived.”

9

No objections were filed.

10

The Court finds, after consideration of the matters presented and an independent

11

review of the record herein, that the Report and Recommendation shall be adopted and that

12

the Petition be denied and this action be dismissed in accordance with the recommendations

13

set forth therein.

14

Based on the foregoing,

15

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Velasco’s Report and Recommendation [Doc.

16

43] is hereby ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law

17

by this Court;

18
19
20
21
22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED
and this action is hereby DISMISSED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 42) is
DENIED as moot;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment be entered accordingly.

23
24

DATED this 11th day of July, 2012.

25
26
27
28
-2-