Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00966/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00966-0/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)

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

SHERWIN FITZGERALD MAY, # 157669, )

 )

Petitioner, )

 ) Civil Action No. 

v. ) 2:14cv966-WKW

) (WO)

LEON FORNISS, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

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 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 ofits discretion and in furtherance of justice,” maytransfer

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

Case 2:14-cv-00966-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 09/29/14 Page 1 of 3
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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

A decision on May’s application for in forma pauperis status (Doc. # 2) is reserved for 1

ruling by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. 

2

Case 2:14-cv-00966-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 09/29/14 Page 2 of 3
decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 29 day of September, 2014. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:14-cv-00966-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 09/29/14 Page 3 of 3