Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00620/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00620-0/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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

JAMES L. BOYINGTON, #235 843 *

Petitioner, *

 

 v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-620-T

WARDEN J.C. GILES, et al., *

Respondents. *

 _______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is pending before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 p et it ion for habeas

corpus filed by Petitioner on June 30, 2005. In this p et it ion, Petitioner challenges his

convictions for DUI and a drug offense entered against him by the Circuit Court for

Baldwin Count y , Alabama, in June 2004. Petitioner is currently serving a ten year term of

imprisonment. 

DISCUSSION

T his court, “in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice,” may

transfer Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corp us to “the district court for the

district within which the State court was held which convicted” Petitioner. 28 U.S.C. §

2241(d). Petitioner seeks to challenge convictions entered against him by the Circuit Court

for Baldwin County, Alabama. Baldwin County is located within the jurisdiction of the

Case 2:05-cv-00620-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 07/18/05 Page 1 of 3
1

A decision on Petitioner’s application for in forma pauperis status is reserved for ruling by

the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

2

United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. In light of the foregoing,

the court concludes t hat t he 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 t hat this case

be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before August 1, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous,

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by t he District Court. The parties

are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is

not appealable.

Failure to file written objections t o the proposed findings and recommendations in

the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the p arty from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar t he party from attacking on

appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon

Case 2:05-cv-00620-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 07/18/05 Page 2 of 3
3

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.

DONE, this 18th day of July, 2005.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00620-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 07/18/05 Page 3 of 3