Ramirez v. Rathman, No. 2:2012cv03580 - Document 12 (N.D. Ala. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 4/1/2016. (AVC)

Download PDF
Ramirez v. Rathman Doc. 12 FILED 2016 Apr-01 PM 03:56 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION JASON JOHN RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. JOHN T. RATHMAN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:12-cv-03580-WMA-SGC MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Jason John Ramirez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se. (Doc. 1). The magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation on March 1, 2016, recommending Ramirez’s § 2241 petition be denied to the extent it challenges the Bureau of Prisons’s computation of his aggregate sentence and dismissed to the extent it alleges a substantive sentencing error. (Doc. 10). The magistrate judge further recommended Ramirez’s requests for appointment of counsel and a hearing be denied. (Id.). Ramirez was afforded fourteen (14) days to file objections to the 1 Dockets.Justia.com report and recommendation. (See id.). More than fourteen (14) days have passed, and the court has received no objections from Ramirez.1 After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s report, the court ADOPTS that report and ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s recommendations. Accordingly, Ramirez’s requests for appointment of counsel and a hearing are DENIED. Furthermore, Ramirez’s § 2241 petition is DENIED to the extent it challenges the Bureau of Prisons’s computation of his aggregate sentence and DISMISSED to the extent it alleges a substantive sentencing error. A final judgment will be entered. DONE this the 1st day of April, 2016. _____________________________ WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE A copy of the report and recommendation was mailed to Ramirez by the court on March 2, 2016 but was returned as UNDELIVERABLE on March 29, 2016 (Doc. 11). Ramirez has failed to provide the court a new address. 1 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.