From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howard v. Taylor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
Apr 5, 2013
CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00408-MP-CAS (N.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00408-MP-CAS

04-05-2013

NATASKA HOWARD , Petitioner, v. W T TAYLOR, Respondent.


ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 16, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, recommending that the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed. The petitioner objected, Doc. 22, and the Court has made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection was made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Additionally, the petitioner filed three other motions. The first and second are motions to supplement the petition, with attached proposed supplements. Docs. 14 (with supplement at 15) and Doc. 20. The motions are granted, and the Court considered the proposed materials. The third motion asks the Court to clarify that she was not charged in the Southern District of Florida with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Court has reviewed the indictment in the case, Doc. 7 in case 1:06-cr-20177 (S.D. Fla. 2006), and the mandate of the Eleventh Circuit, Doc. 88 in that case, and agrees that no gun charge was involved. The motion for clarification, Doc. 23 in our case, is granted to the extent that this reference, which appears to be a cut-and-paste error, is stricken from the Report and Recommendation. Otherwise, the Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation that petitioner's petition does not fall within the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and thus may not be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Accordingly it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted and incorporated herein except as noted above.
2. Petitioner's Motions for Request to Supplement the § 2241 motion (Docs. 14 and 20) are GRANTED.
3. Petitioner's Motion for Clarification (Doc. 23) is granted to the extent noted above.
4. The petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.

______________

Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge


Summaries of

Howard v. Taylor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
Apr 5, 2013
CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00408-MP-CAS (N.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2013)
Case details for

Howard v. Taylor

Case Details

Full title:NATASKA HOWARD , Petitioner, v. W T TAYLOR, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

Date published: Apr 5, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00408-MP-CAS (N.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2013)