Graham v. Crow et al (INMATE 3), No. 2:2018cv00755 - Document 9 (M.D. Ala. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER ADOPTING 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge; OVERRULING the petitioner's 8 Objections to Report and Recommendation; the petition for writ of habeas corpus be and is hereby DENIED, and the petition be a nd is hereby DISMISSED in accordance with the provisions of 28 USC 2244(b)(3)(A) as Graham has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this court to consider his successive habeas application. Signed by Honorable Judge Emily C. Marks on 10/31/18. (djy, )

Download PDF
Graham v. Crow et al (INMATE 3) Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CHARLES GRAHAM, Petitioner, v. JOHN CROW, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIV. ACT. NO. 2:18cv755-ECM [WO] OPINION and ORDER On September 21, 2018, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation denying the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus as a successive petition. See Doc. # 7. On September 28, 2018, the plaintiff filed objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court has carefully reviewed the record in this case, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the petitioner’s objections. Upon an independent review of the file in this case and for good cause, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and is hereby ADOPTED, the petitioner’s objections be and are hereby OVERRULED, the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Graham on August 22, 2018, be and is hereby DENIED, and the petition be and is hereby DISMISSED in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) as Graham has failed to obtain the Dockets.Justia.com requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this court to consider his successive habeas application. DONE this 31st day of October, 2018. /s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS 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.