IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

KENDRICK HORTON, # 315094, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 2:21cv785-WHA-CSC ) (WO) KAREN CARTER, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION Kendrick Horton, a state inmate at the Easterling Correctional Facility in Clio, Alabama, initiated this action by filing a petition in which he seeks habeas corpus relief under

. Doc. 1. In his § 2254 petition, Horton challenges his March 2021 conviction in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, for enticing a child for immoral purposes. Horton was sentenced to a 15-year term split with 3 years to serve in prison. II. DISCUSSION Title

(d) allows Horton to bring a § 2254 habeas petition in either (a) the federal district court for the district wherein he is in custody (the Middle District of Alabama, where the Easterling Correctional Facility is located), or (b) the federal district court for the district within which the state court that convicted and sentenced him was held (the Northern District of Alabama, where the Circuit Court of Morgan County is located). Section 2241(d) provides that this court “in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice,” may transfer a petitioner’s § 2254 petition to “the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced [the petitioner].”

(d). The matters complained of by Horton stem from his conviction and sentence entered by the Circuit Court of Morgan County. The records and witnesses relating to these matters are likely to be located in Morgan County. Therefore, this court finds that the furtherance of justice and judicial economy will be best served by transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for review and disposition.

III. 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

(d). It is further

ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation by December 8, 2021. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations under

(b)(1) shall bar a

party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright,

(5th Cir. 1982); 11TH CIR. R. 3-1. See Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard,

(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). DONE this 24th day of November, 2021. /s/ Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE