The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
KENNETH DERRELL BROWN, JR., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. 7:24-cv-00872-MHH-NAD
)
CHRISTOPHER GORDY, Warden, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On June 4, 2025, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he
recommended that the Court dismiss Kenneth Derrell Brown Jr.’s petition for writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because he has not exhausted his state court
remedies. (Doc. 33). The magistrate judge advised Mr. Brown of his right to object
within 14 days. (Doc. 33, pp. 12-13). To date, the Court has not received
objections.1
1 Mr. Brown filed a “Letter Rogatory” on which he wrote “(This is not a Motion).” (Doc. 34). In
that document, Mr. Brown, proceeding as “Ali Yair Yamin,” states that he seeks to “offset all
unpaid obligations of DEBTOR KENETH DERREL BROWN JR.” (Doc. 34, p. 1). Nothing in
that document resembles an objection to the magistrate judge’s report. Mr. Brown also has filed
other documents including a motion for protective order, a “Notice of Default,” a “Notice of
Complaint,” and copies of prison disciplinary actions. (Doc. 35). Because those documents
concern Mr. Brown’s conditions of confinement and relate to his pending civil action, the
magistrate judge directed the Clerk to re-docket those submissions in Mr. Brown’s civil action,
Brown v. Walker, 7:24-cv-01160-RDP-NAD.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the
[magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3)
(“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objective to.”). A district court’s obligation to
“‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made,’” 447 U.S. at 673 (quoting
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)), requires a district judge to “‘give fresh consideration to those
issues to which specific objection has been made by a party,’” 447 U.S. at 675
(quoting House Report No. 94-1609, p. 3 (1976)). United States v. Raddatz, 447
U.S. 667 (1980) (emphasis in Raddatz).
After consideration of the electronic record in this case and the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report, and accepts the
recommendation.2 Consistent with the recommendation, by separate order, the
2 The Court expresses no opinion regarding the merits of Mr. Brown’s contention that his state
sentence is an “unauthorized sentence.” (Doc. 33, p. 9). Mr. Brown’s habeas petition fails on the
merits of that claim because, as Judge Danella explained, the Court cannot decide issues of state
law, not because the Court has considered the claim and rejected it. Per the Branan decision, the
Court may not consider the merits of Mr. Brown’s argument concerning the legality of his sentence
under state law. (Doc. 33, p. 9) (citing Branan v. Booth, 861 F.2d 1507, 1508 (11th Cir. 1988)).
Court will dismiss Mr. Brown’s petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice
because he did not exhaust his state court remedies.
Because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists
of reason, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rule 11(a), Rules
Governing § 2254 Proceedings.°
DONE and ORDERED this July 22, 2025.
Aadles HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
> Pursuant to Rule 22(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Mr. Brown may request
a certificate of appealability from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b);
11th Cir. R. 22-1.