Opinion
Civil Case No. 11-cv-00592-REB-MEH
10-13-2011
STEVEN ACKERMAN, Applicant, v. RENE G. GARCIA, Warden, FCI Englewood, Respondent.
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is the Recommendation on Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [#21] filed August 19, 2011. The applicant filed an objection [#22], which he supplemented [#25]. The respondent filed a response [#26] to the objection, and the applicant filed a reply [#27] to the response. I overrule the objections, adopt the recommendation, and deny the application for habeas relief.
"[#21]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendation to which objections have been filed. I have considered carefully the record, recommendation, objection, response, reply, and applicable caselaw.
Moreover, because the applicant is proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). As required, I have not acted as an advocate for the pro se litigant. Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
The recommendation is detailed and correctly applies the apposite law to the uncontroverted facts. Contrastingly, applicant's objection and reply misapprehends and misapplies the applicable law.
Therefore, I find and conclude ultimately that the reasons stated, authorities cited, and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation proposed by the magistrate judge should be approved and adopted.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation on Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [#21] filed August 19, 2011, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections stated in the objection [#22] (as supplemented by [#25]) and the reply [#27] are OVERRULED;
3. That the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed March 9, 2011, is DENIED; and
4. That this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Dated September 26, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
Robert E. Blackburn
United States District Judqe