Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_24-cv-01263/USCOURTS-alnd-4_24-cv-01263-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

GARY ALLEN BURTON,

Petitioner,

v.

STEVEN T. MARSHALL,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 4:24-cv-1263-MHH-GMB

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Gary Allen Burton filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1. Consistent with the usual practices of this 

court and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court referred the petition to a Magistrate Judge 

for a preliminary report and recommendation. See McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 

136 (1991). For the following reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends the 

dismissal of this action for Burton’s failure to prosecute his claims pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

I. DISCUSSION

On December 5, 2024, the court ordered Burton to file an amended habeas 

petition within 14 days. Doc. 7 at 2. The court advised Burton that his failure to 

comply by the deadline could result in the dismissal of this action for want of 

prosecution without further notice. Doc. 7 at 2. To date, Burton has not complied 

FILED

 2025 Jan-02 PM 03:47

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:24-cv-01263-MHH-GMB Document 8 Filed 01/02/25 Page 1 of 3
2

with the court’s order to file an amended habeas petition, and his time for doing so 

has expired. Accordingly, this action is due to be dismissed for Burton’s failure to 

prosecute his claims.

II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated above, the court RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b). 

III. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT

The petitioner may file specific written objections to this report and 

recommendation. Any objections must be filed with the Clerk of Court within 14 

days. The petitioner must identify every objectionable finding of fact or 

recommendation and state the specific basis for every objection. The petitioner also 

must identify every claim in the petition that the report and recommendation has not 

addressed. Objections should not contain new allegations, present additional 

evidence, or repeat legal arguments.

A petitioner who fails to object to factual or legal conclusions in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation waives the right to challenge on 

appeal those same conclusions adopted in the District Judge’s order. Without a 

proper objection, however, the court on appeal may review the unobjected-to factual 

Case 4:24-cv-01263-MHH-GMB Document 8 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 3
3

and legal conclusions for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. 

R. 3-1.

After receiving the petitioner’s objections, a District Judge will conduct a de 

novo review of the relevant portions of the report and recommendation and may 

accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact 

and recommendations. The District Judge also may refer this action back to the 

Magistrate Judge with instructions for further proceedings.

The petitioner may not appeal the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 

Circuit. The petitioner may appeal only from a final judgment entered by a District 

Judge.

DONE and ORDERED on January 2, 2025.

 _________________________________

 GRAY M. BORDEN

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:24-cv-01263-MHH-GMB Document 8 Filed 01/02/25 Page 3 of 3