Carrier v. Romero, No. 1:2017cv01898 - Document 15 (N.D. Ala. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION - Having carefully considered, de novo, all of the materials in the Court file, including the Report and Recommendation, and the objections thereto, the Court is of the opinion that the Magistrates Report and Recommendation ought t o be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. The Court EXPRESSLY HOLDS that the Respondents motion for summary dismissal should be GRANTED and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. An appropriate Final Order will be entered. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 3/19/2018. (KEK)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Carrier v. Romero Doc. 15 FILED 2018 Mar-19 PM 12:48 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION PHILLIP AUSTON CARRIER, Petitioner, v. WARDEN B. ROMERO, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 1:17-cv–1898-VEH-JHE MEMORANDUM OPINION On February 20, 2018, the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation which, in pertinent part, stated: the undersigned RECOMMENDS the respondent’s motion for summary dismissal be GRANTED, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Doc. 11 at 7). On March 16, 2018, the Petitioner filed an Objection to the Magistrate’s recommendation. (Doc. 14). Having carefully considered, de novo, all of the materials in the Court file, including the Report and Recommendation, and the objections thereto, the Court is of the opinion that the Magistrates Report and Recommendation ought to be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. The Court EXPRESSLY HOLDS that the Respondent’s motion for summary dismissal should be GRANTED and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be Dockets.Justia.com DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. An appropriate Final Order will be entered. DONE this 19th day of March, 2018. VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS United States 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.
