Marbury v. Alabama Marbury v. Alabama (M.D. Ala., 2013)

Copy Citation

ANTHONY L. MARBURY, # 226054, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ALABAMA, et al Respondents.

Civil Action No. 2: 13cv436-WHA (WO)

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

June 27, 2013

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

        This cause is before the court on a pro se 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief filed by Alabama inmate Anthony L. Marbury ("Marbury") on about June 20, 2013. (Doc. No. 1. ) In his petition, Marbury challenges an October 2011 judgment of the Clay County Circuit Court revoking his probation, which resulted in his return to the state penitentiary to serve a sentence imposed by that same court.

        This court, "in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice, " may transfer a petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus to "the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced the petitioner. " See 28 U.S.C. 2241(d). Marbury challenges a judgment of the Clay County Circuit Court revoking his probation on a prison sentence imposed by that same court. Clay County is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Consequently, this court concludes that the transfer of this case to such other court for

Page 2

hearing and determination is appropriate.

        Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2241(d).

        It is further

        ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the Recommendation on or before July 11 2013. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

        Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities Inc 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

Page 3

Prichard 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

        Done this 27 day of June, 2013.

        /s/Charles S. Coody        CHARLES S. COODY        UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

--------

Footnotes:

         A decision on Marbury's application for in forma pauperis status (Doc. No. 2) is reserved for ruling by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

--------

--------

Footnotes:

         A decision on Marbury's application for in forma pauperis status (Doc. No. 2) is reserved for ruling by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

--------