Caffey v. United States of America (INMATE 3), No. 2:2009cv00151 - Document 70 (M.D. Ala. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER vacating the 63 Order and 64 Final Judgment; overruling the 69 Objections; adopting the 62 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and directing that the Petitioner's 1 Motion to Vacate filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 5/31/12. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(scn, )

Download PDF
Caffey v. United States of America (INMATE 3) Doc. 70 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION TERRANCE DEANDRE CAFFEY, Petitioner, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09cv151-WHA (WO) ORDER This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #62), entered on March 5, 2012, and the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. #69), filed on May 21, 2012. The previous order (Doc. #63) and Final Judgment (Doc. #64) are VACATED and SET ASIDE, the court having subsequently authorized the Petitioner to file objections on or before May 17, 2012. The objections were mailed from a prison facility on May 17, 2012, and they are, therefore, timely. The court has conducted an independent evaluation and de novo review of this case, including the Recommendation, the objections, and the entire file. Having done so, the court finds that the objections are merely re-statements of the claims raised in his § 2255 motion to vacate. The court agrees with the analysis and the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as to Petitioner’s claims, and Petitioner’s objections are, therefore, OVERRULED. The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED. DONE this 31st day of May, 2012. /s/ W. Harold Albritton W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.