United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Middle Division
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the undersigned on the Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge
John E. Ott. (Doc. 12). Kuljinder Singh (“Mr.
Singh”) has objected to the R&R. (Doc. 13). The
Court has reviewed the entire file. For the reasons set out
herein, the Court finds that Mr. Singh's objections are
due to be OVERRULED, the R&R is due to
be ADOPTED, and this case is due to be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Report and Recommendation Process
report and recommendation process is set forth statutorily in
28 U.S.C. § 636, which states in part that:
(b)(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law
to the contrary-
(A) a judge may designate a magistrate judge
to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the
court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on
the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an
indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress
evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit
maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to
involuntarily dismiss an action. A judge of the court may
reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A)
where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order
is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
(B) a judge may also designate a magistrate
judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings,
and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of
fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of
the court, of any motion excepted in subparagraph (A), of
applications for posttrial relief made by individuals
convicted of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions
challenging conditions of confinement.
(C) the magistrate judge shall file his
proposed findings and recommendations under subparagraph (B)
with the court and a copy shall forthwith be mailed to all
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any
party may serve and file written objections to such proposed
findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A
judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The
judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis by
underlining added); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)
(addressing procedures for handling dispositive motions and
prisoner petitions when magistrate judges are involved).
in this matter, Mr. Singh has filed objections, his
objections are either contradicted by the record before this
Court or improperly seek to bring new facts before the Court
that were not presented to the magistrate judge. Accordingly,
the objections will be overruled.
Mr. Singh states that he was “astonished to receive
your report and recommendation that was issued on October 5,
2017, because I did not file habeas corpus recently. The last
time I filed habeas corpus ... was last year, and I received
the decision in December, 2016.” (Doc. 13 at 1).
However, a review of the Court's docket sheet shows that
the Petition was filed in September of 2016 and still remains
for this Court's determination.
Singh then argues that “[t]here are many issues ...
raised in the [R&R] that are not applicable to [this]
case anymore.” (Id., setting out
seven paragraphs of affirmative statements regarding what Mr.
Singh alleges are the current facts) (emphasis
supplied). Mr. Singh is not objecting to any facts
found by the Magistrate Judge. Indeed, he ...