Brown v. Attorney General for the State of Alabama, The, No. 5:2015cv00668 - Document 8 (N.D. Ala. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 7/27/2015. (AVC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Brown v. Attorney General for the State of Alabama, The Doc. 8 FILED 2015 Jul-27 PM 04:05 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION JAMES BRENT BROWN, Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 5:15-cv-0668-SLB-JEO MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Petitioner James Brent Brown, an Alabama state prisoner acting pro se. (Doc.1 1 (“Petition” or “Pet”)). On May 15, 2015, the magistrate judge entered a report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(1) that recommended that the action be dismissed with prejudice on the ground that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). (Doc. 6). Brown has now filed a timely objection to the magistrate’s report and recommendation. (Doc. 7). Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and Brown’s objection thereto, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. While Brown has objected, it suffices to say that his arguments are adequately addressed by the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Accordingly, Brown’s objection is OVERRULED. As a result, the petition 1 Citations to “Doc(s). ___” are to the document number of the pleadings and other materials in the court file as reflected on the docket sheet. Dockets.Justia.com for writ of habeas corpus is due to be denied and this action is due to DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Further, because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, a certificate of appealability is also due to be DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rule 11(a), RULES GOVERNING § 2254 PROCEEDINGS. A separate Final Judgment will be entered. DONE this the 27th day of July, 2015. SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN SENIOR 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.
