Kimber v. Jones et al, No. 5:2012cv02320 - Document 10 (N.D. Ala. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 4/3/13. (ASL)

Download PDF
FILED 2013 Apr-03 AM 11:11 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION ANDREW BRUCE KIMBER, Petitioner, v. JONES, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondents. } } } } } } } } } } } Case No.: 5:12-cv-02320-RDP-JEO MEMORANDUM OF OPINION The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. #9) on February 22, 2013, recommending that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1) be denied and that this action be dismissed with prejudice, based upon the statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. ยง 2244(d)(1). No objections were filed by any party. Having now carefully reviewed and considered de novo all of the materials in the court file,1 including the Report and Recommendation, the court is of the opinion that the Report is due to be and hereby is ADOPTED, and the Recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1) is due to be denied and this action is due to be dismissed with prejudice, based upon the statute of limitations. A Final Judgment will be entered. 1 The court notes that it was not required to conduct an independent review of the Report and Recommendation in this case because no party has filed objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."). Nonetheless, the court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and agrees with his conclusions. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 2013. ___________________________________ R. DAVID PROCTOR 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.