Stewart v. Patterson et al (INMATE 3), No. 2:2011cv01009 - Document 57 (M.D. Ala. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER directing that, upon an independent review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the 56 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and is here by ADOPTED, that the petition for habeas corpus relief be and is hereby DENIED, and that this case be and is hereby DISMISSED because Stewart has failed to demonstrate that the disciplinary action resulting in his placement in disciplinary segregation and loss of privileges gives rise to any claim for federal habeas relief or states any claim for a denial of his constitutional right to due process. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 4/28/14. (scn, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION MICHAEL C. STEWART, #174305, Petitioner, v. TONY PATTERSON, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv1009-TMH (WO) OPINION and ORDER On February 26, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case recommending that the petition of habeas corpus relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 be dismissed. (Doc. # 56). Upon an independent review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and is hereby ADOPTED, that the petition for habeas corpus relief be and is hereby DENIED, and that this case be and is hereby DISMISSED because Stewart has failed to demonstrate that the disciplinary action resulting in his placement in disciplinary segregation and loss of privileges gives rise to any claim for federal habeas relief or states any claim for a denial of his constitutional right to due process. Done this 28th day of April, 2014. /s/ 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.
