Villar v. Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The, 2:15-cv-1243-RDP-JEO. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20171122b24
Visitors: 10
Filed: Nov. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 21, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION R. DAVID PROCTOR , District Judge . This is a habeas corpus action filed by Petitioner William Herbert Villar, an Alabama state prisoner acting pro se. (Doc. #1). Villar's petition, nominally filed pursuant to the general habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. 2241, challenges criminal convictions and sentences entered in 2005 by the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama. On November 3, 2017, the Magistrate Judge to whom the case is referred entered a Report and Recommendation
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION R. DAVID PROCTOR , District Judge . This is a habeas corpus action filed by Petitioner William Herbert Villar, an Alabama state prisoner acting pro se. (Doc. #1). Villar's petition, nominally filed pursuant to the general habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. 2241, challenges criminal convictions and sentences entered in 2005 by the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama. On November 3, 2017, the Magistrate Judge to whom the case is referred entered a Report and Recommendation (..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
R. DAVID PROCTOR, District Judge.
This is a habeas corpus action filed by Petitioner William Herbert Villar, an Alabama state prisoner acting pro se. (Doc. #1). Villar's petition, nominally filed pursuant to the general habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenges criminal convictions and sentences entered in 2005 by the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama. On November 3, 2017, the Magistrate Judge to whom the case is referred entered a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), recommending that Villar's habeas petition be construed as being subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). (Doc. #9). No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time in which to do so has now expired.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, 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. As a result, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for lack of jurisdiction. A separate final order will be entered.
Source: Leagle
