Miller, III v. Marshall
Miller, III v. Marshall
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALONZO MILLER, III, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:22-cv-00552-AMM-SGC ) JOSEPH H. HEADLEY, Warden, et ) al., ) ) Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge entered a report on May 17, 2022, recommending this pro se petition for writ of habeas, filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254, be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as second or successive. Doc. 3. Although the magistrate judge advised the petitioner of his right to object, the court has not received any objections. See
id.at 3–4. After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s report, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. Consistent with that recommendation, this matter is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as successive. Because successiveness is the basis of this decision, a ruling on a certificate of appealability is not required. Osbourne v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corrs.,
968 F.3d 1261, 1264 n.3 (11th Cir. 2020). A final judgment will be entered. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of June, 2022.
ANNA M. hans. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Reference
- Status
- Unknown