Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

May v. Forniss

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

September 29, 2014

SHERWIN FITZGERALD MAY, # 157669, Petitioner,
v.
LEON FORNISS, et al., Respondents.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CHARLES S. COODY, Magistrate Judge.

This cause is before the court on a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief filed on September 6, 2014, by Sherwin Fitzgerald May ("May"), a state inmate incarcerated at Staton Correctional Facility in Elmore, Alabama. Doc. # 1. May challenges his 2009 conviction in the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, for robbery in the first degree. He was sentenced to life in prison.

DISCUSSION

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). May challenges his conviction and sentence entered by the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. Tuscaloosa 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 hearing and determination is appropriate.[1]

CONCLUSION

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 under 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 October 13, 2014. 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; 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 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th 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.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.