Williams v. Amerson, No. 1:2015cv01163 - Document 6 (N.D. Ala. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 8/7/2015. (KEK)

Download PDF
Williams v. Amerson Doc. 6 FILED 2015 Aug-07 PM 01:25 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION MARK ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. LARRY AMERSON, Sheriff, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:15-cv-01163-MHH-JEO MEMORANDUM OPINION Mark Anthony Williams filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). On July 16, 2015, Chief Magistrate Judge John Ott entered a report and recommendation concerning Mr. Williams’s petition. (Doc. 4). In his report, Judge Ott recommended that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice because Mr. Williams has not exhausted the remedies available under state law. 4). (Doc. Mr. Williams objected to Judge Ott’s report and recommendation but did not address Judge Ott’s finding that Mr. Williams has not exhausted his state remedies. (Doc. 5). A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When a party makes timely objections to a report and recommendation, the district court Dockets.Justia.com “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. The Court has reviewed the record and Judge Ott’s report and recommendation and has reached an independent conclusion that Mr. Williams has not exhausted the remedies available to hin under state law. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS Chief Magistrate Judge Ott’s July 16, 2015 report and ACCEPTS Judge Ott’s recommendation that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice. The Court will enter a separate order consistent with this memorandum opinion. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2015. MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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.