Harvey v. Potter et al, No. 5:2016cv00679 - Document 10 (N.D. Ala. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Having reviewed the habeas petition and the report and recommendation, the Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judges description of the relevant state court proceedings. Therefor e, the Court adopts the magistrate judges report and accepts his recommendation. The Court dismisses as moot the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the above-styled cause. An order of final judgment will be entered. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 8/31/2016. (KMG, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Harvey v. Potter et al Doc. 10 FILED 2016 Aug-31 PM 06:10 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION JASON BYRON HARVEY, Petitioner, vs. ED POTTER, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 5:16-cv-00679-MHH-TMP MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 26, 2016, the magistrate judge filed his Report and Recommendation in the abovestyled cause, recommending that this petition for habeas corpus relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed as moot. To date, no objections have been filed by either party. A copy of the Report and Recommendation mailed to the petitioner was returned as undeliverable on August 5, 2016. (Doc. 9). A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11 th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).1 1 When a party objects to a report in which a magistrate judge recommends dismissal of the action, a district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). Dockets.Justia.com Having reviewed the habeas petition and the report and recommendation, the Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judge’s description of the relevant state court proceedings. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation. The Court dismisses as moot the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the above-styled cause. An order of final judgment will be entered. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2016. MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA U.S. 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.
