Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-1_14-cv-00477/USCOURTS-alnd-1_14-cv-00477-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Hill
Petitioner
W. T. Taylor
Respondent

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

JEFFREY HILL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:14-cv-00477-MHH-TMP

)

W. T. TAYLOR, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 2, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he 

recommended that the Court dismiss petitioner Jeffrey Hill’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

petition for writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 14). The 

magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file specific written objections 

within fourteen (14) days. To date, neither party has filed objections to the report 

and recommendation. (Doc. 14, pp. 12-13). 

A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings 

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A 

district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain 

error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 

FILED

 2017 Mar-22 PM 04:17

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:14-cv-00477-MHH-TMP Document 15 Filed 03/22/17 Page 1 of 2
2

776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 

(11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).

1

Having reviewed the materials in the Court file, including the report and 

recommendation, the Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no 

plain error in the magistrate judge’s description of the relevant facts. Therefore, 

the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation that

the Court dismiss Mr. Hill’s petition without prejudice. The Court will enter a 

separate final order. 

DONE and ORDERED this March 22, 2017.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 When a party objects to a report in which a magistrate judge recommends dismissal of the 

action, a district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or 

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 

636(b)(1)(B)-(C). 

Case 1:14-cv-00477-MHH-TMP Document 15 Filed 03/22/17 Page 2 of 2