Taite v. 11th Cir U.S. District (INMATE 2), No. 2:2020cv00788 - Document 21 (M.D. Ala. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1) the Petitioner's 13 & 14 objections are OVERRULED; 2) the 11 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 3) the Petitioner's 3 motion to amend or correct, 15 mot ion to transfer, 17 & 18 motions for change of venue, 19 motion to take judicial notice and 20 motion for proof are DENIED; 5) this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; A final judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 1/5/2021. (amf, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Taite v. 11th Cir U.S. District (INMATE 2) Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION DRELIJAH J. MUHAMMAD-ALI, a/k/a MARCUS ORLANDO TAITE, # 180644, Petitioner, v. 11th CIRCUIT U.S. DISTRICT, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:20-cv-788-ECM ) (WO) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Now pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 11) which recommends that this habeas petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Also pending before the Court are the Petitioner’s motion to amend or correct (doc. 3), motion to transfer (doc. 15), motions for change of venue (docs. 17-18), motion to take judicial notice (doc. 19) and motion for proof (doc. 20). On October 28, 2020, the Petitioner filed Objections to the Recommendation (doc. 13 & 14). When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires that the district court independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Dockets.Justia.com Recommendation must be sufficiently specific in order to warrant de novo review. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783-85 (11th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is reviewed for clear error. Id. The Court first addresses the Petitioner’s motion to transfer and motions for change of venue. The Petitioner requests the Court transfer his petition to “Muhammad International Criminal Court of Justice Al-Rabat Morocco Empire Kingdom.” (Doc. 17). The Petitioner offers no legal basis for the Court to take such action. Accordingly, his motions are due to be denied. The Court has carefully reviewed the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the Petitioner’s objections. In his objections, the Petitioner objects to the dismissal of his petition without any specificity and without stating the bases for his objections. See Docs. 13-14. The Petitioner does not point to any legal error committed by the Magistrate Judge but offers only his conclusory assertions that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court or the United States. (Id.). The Petitioner merely re-offers a recitation of the claims made in his petition and other pleadings. Consequently, the Recommendation is reviewed for clear error, and the Court finds that the Petitioner’s objections are due to be overruled. Accordingly, for the reasons as stated and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. the Petitioner’s objections (doc. 13 & 14) are OVERRULED; 2. the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 11) is ADOPTED; 2 3. the Petitioner’s motion to amend or correct (doc. 3), motion to transfer (doc. 15), motions for change of venue (docs. 17-18), motion to take judicial notice (doc. 19) and motion for proof (doc. 20) are DENIED; 5. this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. A final judgment will be entered. DONE this 5th day of January, 2021. /s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
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.
