United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
DR. MIKE REDFORD, Juris; President U.S. Cyberwar Research Institute, Washington, D.C., Petitioner,
WARDEN CONLEY, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DIJFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Janet F.
King's Final Report and Recommendation 
(“R&R”). The R&R recommends the Court
dismiss Petitioner Dr. Mike Redford's
(“Petitioner”) amended 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition . The R&R also recommends the Court deny as
moot Petitioner's “Motion for Disqualification
and/or Recusal of Judge William Duffey Jr.” . Also
before the Court are Petitioner's Objections to the
R&R . Also before the Court are Petitioner's
“Motion for Invocation of Discovery Process”
, “Motion for Appointment of Discovery
Counsel” , “Motion for Evidentiary
Hearing”  and “Motion for Jury Trial”
 (collectively, “Post-R&R Motions”).
is confined within the Georgia Department of Corrections. He
is serving a ten-year sentence for his Douglas County
convictions for aggravated stalking.
November 2, 2016, Petitioner filed a form petition for writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On December 15,
2016, Petitioner, as directed by the Magistrate Judge, filed
his amended petition. In it, Petitioner challenges the
termination of his parental rights and appears to challenge a
state-court order requiring him to make child support
payments. He asserts constitutional violations, child-support
harassment, and a conspiracy to convict him for aggravated
stalking. (Am. Pet.  ¶¶ 11-12). Petitioner seeks
a dismissal of his child support obligations, a rescission of
Gwinnett County's bench warrant, a refund of previously
paid child support and damages related to his student loans,
an investigation of Gwinnett County, an injunction against
Gwinnett County, and criminal prosecution of certain state
December 16, 2016, Petitioner filed his Motion for
Disqualification and/or Recusal of Judge William Duffey Jr.
(“Motion to Recuse”). Petitioner states that the
Court “has manifested partiality and personal bias
since 2002 against petitioner and he is a racist.” He
states the Court “advocates racial inferiority of
blacks [sic] intellectual abilities, a racial superiority
opinions manifested over the years his impartiality is
reasonably questioned.” He states further that the
Court is “in cohort with many state corrupt officials .
. . .” (Mot. to Recuse at 1). Petitioner does not offer
any evidence to support these accusations.
December 28, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued her R&R.
The Magistrate Judge determined that Petitioner is currently
confined based on his criminal convictions for aggravated
stalking, not based on a state domestic-relations contempt
order. She found that, to the extent Petitioner is subject to
future custody or contempt proceedings based on his state
domestic-relations case, the principles in Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) require that the Court
abstain, because a domestic-relations case involves important
state interests and there is an adequate opportunity to raise
constitutional challenges through the normal state process.
The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court deny
Petitioner's Petition, and deny as moot his Motion to
January 11, 2017 through January 13, 2017, Petitioner filed
his Post-R&R Motions, seeking discovery, counsel, an
evidentiary hearing, and a jury trial. On January 12, 2017,
Petitioner filed his Objections. The Objections consist
almost entirely of vague statements and legal standards and
citations that do not appear to apply here. (See,
e.g., Obj. at 3 (“Magistrate Judge erred by
mischaracterizing the nature of Petitioner's Petition,
therefore she failed to establish an essential element of the
conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or
modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681
F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). A district judge
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions
of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). Where no party has objected to the report
and recommendation, the Court conducts only a plain error
review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714
F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).