The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
QUADARRIUS COHILL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-00673-MHH-
) JHE
JIMMY KILGORE, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 7, 2022, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he
recommended that the Court dismiss petitioner Quadarrius Cohill’s § 2254 petition
for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
(Doc. 9). Mr. Cohill has objected to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 10). In
his objections, Mr. Cohill explains that he did not exhaust his state court remedies,
and he did not respond when the magistrate judge offered him an opportunity to
oppose the defendants’ request for summary disposition in this case, (Doc. 8),
because he did not receive his mail in time to respond. (Doc, 10, p. 3).1 Beyond
1 Mr. Cohill filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation within the 14
days permitted for objections. (Docs. 9, 10). As the Magistrate Judge noted in his report, Mr.
Cohill filed his federal habeas petition on May 10, 2021, a few days after he filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari in state circuit court to request review of the decision of the Alabama Board of
Pardons and Parole in his case. (Doc. 9, pp. 2-3). There is language in Mr. Cohill’s state court
docket sheet that indicates that some of the mail sent to Mr. Cohill was returned and that his address
that procedural argument, Mr. Cohill directs his objections to the merits of his
request for relief from the custodial period imposed when his state probation was
revoked. (Doc. 10, pp. 1-3).
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. CRIM. P. 59(b)(3)
(“The district judge must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation.”). 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).
In his objections, Mr. Cohill acknowledges that he did not exhaust his
available state court remedies. (Doc. 10, p. 3). Therefore, the Court may not
eventually was changed. (Doc. 9-2, p. 1).
2
consider his § 2254 habeas petition. Dill v. Holt, 371 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2004). If
mail delays impacted Mr. Cohill’s effort to exhaust his state remedies, Mr. Cohill
may bring the delay to the attention of the state court.
On the record before it, by separate order, the Court will dismiss this § 2254
habeas petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
DONE and ORDERED this January 31, 2022.
oy DELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE