Hines v. Mitchem et al, No. 5:2011cv03507 - Document 15 (N.D. Ala. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 8/14/14. (SAC )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED 2014 Aug-14 PM 02:46 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION JARVIS WERNER HINES, Petitioner, vs. BILLY MITHCEM, Warden, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 5:11-cv-3507-WMA-SGC ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on July 31, 2014 (Doc. 13), recommending this petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. On August 12, 2014, petitioner, Jarvis Werner Hines ( Petitioner ) filed a pleading styled as Motion to Rebuttal Report (Doc. 14). The court will treat Petitioner s filing as objections to the report and recommendation or, in the alternative, as a motion. Construed liberally, Petitioner s most recent filing reasserts arguments presented to and addressed by the magistrate judge, including: (1) that Petitioner was a minor at the time of the murder; and (2) that Petitioner is actually innocent of murder. (See generally Doc. 14). report and These arguments were addressed in the recommendation and Petitioner presents nothing warranting rejection of the magistrate judge s conclusions. (See Doc. 13 at 11; id. at n.6). Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge s findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and her recommendation is ACCEPTED. To the extent the petitioner s filing of August 12, 2014, (Doc. 14), is construed as interposing objections to the report and recommendation, such objections are due to be and hereby are OVERRULED. To the extent the petitioner s filing (Doc. 14) is construed as a motion, it is due to be and hereby is DENIED. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 2254 Proceedings, and consistent with the magistrate judge s recommendation (Doc. 13 at 12), a certificate of appealability is hereby DENIED. A Final Judgment will be entered. DONE this 14th day of August, 2014. _____________________________ WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR. 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.
