Brown v. County of Jefferson et al, No. 2:2017cv01222 - Document 13 (N.D. Ala. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION - After review, the Court agrees that Mr. Brown's federal habeas petition is time-barred. The Court notes that Mr. Brown is parole-eligible on his sentence for Count One, (Doc. 5 -4), so Mr. Brown should review the procedures and deadlines for parole consideration. By separate order, the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice, and the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 9/25/2020. (KEK)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Brown v. County of Jefferson et al Doc. 13 FILED 2020 Sep-25 AM 11:36 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION GRADY BROWN, Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:17-cv-01222-MHH-GMB MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 14, 2020, the magistrate judge appointed to this case entered a report in which he recommended that the Court deny petitioner Grady Brown’s request for federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because Mr. Brown filed his petition after the one-year deadline for the petition expired. (Doc. 10). Judge Borden also recommended against a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 10). Although the parties were advised of their right to file written objections within 14 days, the Court has not received objections. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(3) Dockets.Justia.com (“The district judge must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.”). Although § 636(b)(1) “does not require the [district] judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985). After review, the Court agrees that Mr. Brown’s federal habeas petition is time-barred. The Court notes that Mr. Brown is parole-eligible on his sentence for Count One, (Doc. 5-4), so Mr. Brown should review the procedures and deadlines for parole consideration. By separate order, the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice, and the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. DONE and ORDERED this September 25, 2020. _________________________________ MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA 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.
