Cox v. Alabama Department of Corrections, No. 5:2017cv00556 - Document 36 (N.D. Ala. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the 34 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Because the Petitioner is represented by counsel, his 35 Objections to the Report and Recommendation is hereby STRICKEN. Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 1/30/2019. (JLC)

Download PDF
Cox v. Alabama Department of Corrections Doc. 36 FILED 2019 Jan-30 PM 04:11 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION JOHNNY RAY COX, Petitioner, vs. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 5:17-cv-556-KOB-TMP ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION The magistrate judge filed his amended report and recommendation on December 7, 2018, recommending dismissal of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. (Doc. 34). Petitioner, who is represented by counsel, filed pro se objections to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 35). Because the petitioner is represented by counsel, his pro se filing is due to be and hereby is STRICKEN.1 Having now carefully considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the court finds that the magistrate judge's report should be ADOPTED and the recommendation ACCEPTED. A separate order will be entered in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion 1 Even if the pro se objections were due to be considered, the argument offered by the petitioner is little more than a concession that his sentence has been correctly calculated, with a request that he nonetheless be released prior to the expiration of the sentence. Dockets.Justia.com that will DENY and DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE the claim for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the above-styled cause. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of January, 2019. ____________________________________ KARON OWEN BOWDRE CHIEF 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.