Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_06-cv-04877/USCOURTS-alnd-4_06-cv-04877-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

WILLIAM RAY WEAVER, )

)

Petitioner )

)

v. )

) Case No. 4:06-cv-04877-LSC-HGD

GRANTT CULLIVER, WARDEN, )

and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL )

OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA, )

)

Respondents )

O R D E R

On March 14, 2008, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was

entered and the parties were allowed therein eleven (11) days in which to file

objections to the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. On March 25,

2008, respondents filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. Petitioner, after obtaining an extension of time, filed objections to

the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on April 7, 2008.

After careful consideration of the record in this case, the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation, as well as both the respondent’s and petitioner’s

objections thereto, the court hereby ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge. The

FILED

 2008 Apr-24 PM 02:05

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:06-cv-04877-LSC -HGD Document 17 Filed 04/24/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

court further ACCEPTS the recommendations of the magistrate judge and it is,

therefore,

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the petition for writ of habeas

corpus in this action be and the same hereby is DENIED as to Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7,

8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Claim 6 is REFERRED to the magistrate judge to

conduct an evidentiary hearing and prepare a supplemental report and

recommendation as to that claim. Stated simply, the petitioner alleges that he told his

attorneys that he wanted to testify and they did not call himto the stand before resting

his defense. The petitioner’s attorney has testified through an affidavit that the

petitioner himself made the decision not to testify. Thus, the two versions are in

conflict, and there is nothing to indicate that the state trial judge witnessed the

discussions between the petitioner and his then attorneys or actually received any incourt testimony to resolve the dispute.

Done this 24 day of April 2008.

th

 

L. SCOTT COOGLER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

153671

Case 4:06-cv-04877-LSC -HGD Document 17 Filed 04/24/08 Page 2 of 2