Staton v. Estes et al (INMATE 3), No. 3:2018cv00459 - Document 24 (M.D. Ala. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER directing as follows: (1) the petitioner's 22 objections are OVERRULED; (2) the 21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; (3) the petitioner's 23 Motion for an evidentiary Hearing is DENIED; and (4) this case is DISMISSED with prejudice; a final judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 9/14/2021. (djy, )

Download PDF
Staton v. Estes et al (INMATE 3) Doc. 24 Case 3:18-cv-00459-ECM-SMD Document 24 Filed 09/14/21 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION ARTHANIEL BERNARD STATON, Petitioner, v. DEWAYNE ESTES and STEVEN T. MARSHALL, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:18-cv-459-ECM ) (WO) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Now pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 21) which recommends that this habeas petition be dismissed with prejudice. On July 12, 2021, the Petitioner filed Objections to the Recommendation (doc. 22) and a motion for an evidentiary hearing (doc. 23). When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674 (1980). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). De novo review requires that the district court independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990). “[A] party that wishes to preserve its objection must clearly advise the district court and pinpoint the Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:18-cv-00459-ECM-SMD Document 24 Filed 09/14/21 Page 2 of 3 specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009) (alteration added). The Court has carefully reviewed the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the Petitioner’s objections. The Petitioner objects to the dismissal of his petition without any specificity and without stating the bases for his objections. He offers only his conclusory assertions the Magistrate Judge erred but he does not point to any legal error committed by the Magistrate Judge. See Doc. 22. The Recommendation is reviewed for clear error, and the Court finds that the Petitioner’s objections are due to be overruled. Moreover, the Petitioner requested in his objections and he filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing, (doc. 23). “An evidentiary hearing may be necessary where the material facts are in dispute, but a petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing when his claims are merely conclusory allegations unsupported by specifics.” San Martin v. McNeil, 633 F.3d 1257, 1271 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Pugh v. Smith, 465 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted)). Thus, the Court concludes that under the circumstances of this case, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. Accordingly, for the reasons as stated and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. the Petitioner’s objections (doc. 22) are OVERRULED; 2. the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 21) is ADOPTED; 3. the Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (doc. 23) is DENIED; and 4. this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 2 Case 3:18-cv-00459-ECM-SMD Document 24 Filed 09/14/21 Page 3 of 3 A final judgment will be entered. DONE this 14th day of September, 2021. /s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.