Thomas v. Folks, No. 1:2023cv00086 - Document 12 (S.D. Ala. 2023)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 10 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Terry F. Moorer on 11/7/2023. Copy mailed to Petitioner at Mobile Work Release. (fz)

Download PDF
Thomas v. Folks Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION EMMANUEL LAMONT THOMAS, # 253113, Petitioner, vs. SHARON FOLKS, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIV. ACT. NO. 1:23-cv-86-TFM-B MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On July 21, 2023, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation which recommends this petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied. See Doc. 10. It further recommends the denial of a certificate of appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Id. Petitioner filed his objections on August 15, 2023. See Doc. 11. Therefore the Report and Recommendation is ripe for review. Having reviewed the objections, the Court finds that they make some of the same points raised about Petitioner’s perception that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts. Other objections appear nonsensical. Regardless, none of these objections offset the well-reasoned analysis of the Magistrate Judge. After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, the petition for habeas corpus is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Finally, the Court determines that Petitioner is not entitled to a Certificate of Appealability nor the ability to appeal in forma pauperis. Page 1 of 2 Dockets.Justia.com The Court will enter a separate judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of November, 2023. /s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2

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.