IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EDDIE RAY JAMES, JR., :

:

Petitioner,

:

vs.

: CIVIL ACTION 05-0417-CB-B

WARDEN JERRY FERRELL AND 

COVINGTON COUNTY, 

:

Respondents. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by pro se

Petitioner Eddie Ray James, Jr., has been referred to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule 72.2, and the standing order of general

reference. 

Petitioner, an inmate at Fountain Correctional Facility, is

challenging the constitutionality of his conviction for

distribution of a controlled substance rendered in the Circuit

Court of Covington County, Alabama (Doc. 1, pgs. 2-3).

Covington County is located within in the Middle District of

Alabama. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, an application for habeas

corpus relief may be filed in the district court for the

district wherein such person is in custody or in the district

court for the district wherein the petitioner was convicted and

sentenced. Since Petitioner was convicted in Covington County,

Case 1:05-cv-00417-CB-B Document 3 Filed 07/20/05 Page 1 of 3
which is located within the Middle District of Alabama, the

Middle District is the more convenient forum because of the

accessibility of the record and evidence. Braden v. 30th

Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 493-500, 93

S.Ct. 1123, 1128-1132, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973)(“Congress

explicitly recognized the substantial advantages of having these

cases resolved in the court which originally imposed the

confinement or in the court located nearest the site of the

underlying controversy.”); Byrd v. Martin, 754 F.2d 963, 965

(11th Cir. 1985); Williams v. Thomas, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

15438 (S.D. Ala., September 1999). Accordingly, it is

RECOMMENDED that this case be transferred to the Middle District

of Alabama.

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation. 

 

DONE this 19th day of July, 2005.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:05-cv-00417-CB-B Document 3 Filed 07/20/05 Page 2 of 3
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this

document, file specific written objections with the clerk of court.

Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district judge

of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of

the factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988);

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc).

The procedure for challenging the findings and recommendations of the

magistrate judge is set out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1,

1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a matter

excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a “Statement

of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation” within

ten days after being served with a copy of the

recommendation, unless a different time is established by

order. The statement of objection shall specify those

portions of the recommendation to which objection is made

and the basis for the objection. The objecting party shall

submit to the district judge, at the time of filing the

objection, a brief setting forth the party’s arguments that

the magistrate judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de

novo and a different disposition made. It is insufficient

to submit only a copy of the original brief submitted to the

magistrate judge, although a copy of the original brief may

be submitted or referred to and incorporated into the brief

in support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief in

support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court

of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can be

appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). Pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate judge finds

that the tapes and original records in this action are adequate for

purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this

recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is advised

that a judicial determination that transcription is necessary is

required before the United States will pay the cost of the transcript.

DONE this 19th day of July, 2005.

/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00417-CB-B Document 3 Filed 07/20/05 Page 3 of 3