United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Linda T.
Walker's Final Report and Recommendation ,
recommending that this action be dismissed and that
Petitioner Georgette Benita Thornton's
(“Petitioner”) Affidavit Notice of Intention 
(“Notice”) be docketed in Thornton v.
Seabolt, No. 1:13-cv-3692-WSD (N.D.Ga. Nov. 5, 2013)
(the “Seabolt Action”). Also before the
Court are Petitioner's Objections  to the R&R.
October 2003, in the Superior Court of Clayton County,
Petitioner was convicted of felony murder and concealing the
death of another. Petitioner was sentenced to life
imprisonment plus five years. On October 3, 2005, the Georgia
Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's convictions.
Thornton v. State, 620 S.E.2d 356 (Ga. 2005). Eight
years later, on October 30, 2013, Petitioner filed her
Seabolt Action in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, seeking habeas relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 25, 2014, the
Seabolt court dismissed Petitioner's habeas
petition as untimely. On October 17, 2014, the Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed Petitioner's
appeal of the district court's denial of habeas relief.
On September 4, 2014, October 3, 2014, and April 10, 2015,
the Eleventh Circuit denied Petitioner's applications for
leave to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition.
On September 2, 2016, the Seabolt court denied
Petitioner's motions for relief under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60, finding that the motions, properly
construed, were unauthorized “successive Section 2254
petitions.” Seabolt Action, Doc. No. 48 at 5.
January 2017, Petitioner, pro se, sent her Notice to
the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Notice is
addressed to “Georgia Supreme Court (Clerk of Court),
” “United States Court of Appeals (Clerk of
Court), ” “State of Georgia Attorney General,
” and “Department of Corrections
Commissioner.” (Notice at 1). Petitioner's Notice
seeks to explain the “reasons for delay in filing
direct or collateral attack challenging Petitioner's
conviction.” (Notice at 1). The Notice states that
Petitioner “has not been able to properly access the
courts through the prison, ” and that “an
‘Ex Parte Application' is needed by Petitioner to
further her direct attack and collateral attack in both the
Supreme Court of Georgia and the United States Court of
Appeals.” (Notice at 1-2).
January 20, 2017, the Clerk of Court for the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals mailed a response to Petitioner, copying the
Clerk of Court for the District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. ([1.1]). The Court of Appeals Clerk
construed the Notice as a “Notice of Appeal and/or
Motion for Certificate of Appealability” in the
Seabolt Action, and “forwarded [it] to the
district court to be filed as of the date received in th[e]
[Court of Appeals], January 17, 2017.” ([1.1] at 2). On
January 24, 2017, the Notice was docketed, in this case, as a
habeas corpus petition under Section 2554. ().
January 30, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued her R&R,
recommending that this action be dismissed and that
Petitioner's Notice be docketed, in the Seabolt
Action, as a notice of appeal. On February 8, 2017,
Petitioner filed her pro se Objections  to 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 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S.
1112 (1983). 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). With
respect to those findings and recommendations to which
objections have not been asserted, the Court must conduct a
plain error review of the record. United States v.
Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984).
has filed 40 pages of handwritten objections to the R&R,
attaching 49 pages of exhibits. Petitioner's Objections
are rambling, incoherent, and difficult to understand. They
include a request “to mandate ‘to issue a court
order' a requirement mandating the warden Ms. Mickens to
comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” ( at
1). The Objections also refer repeatedly to the
Seabolt Action and appear to seek equitable tolling
of the limitations period applicable to federal habeas
petitions. Petitioner does not clearly challenge any specific
portions of the R&R, and the Court thus reviews the
Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations for plain
error. See Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548
(11th Cir. 1988) (“Parties filing objections to a
magistrate's report and recommendation must specifically
identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive,
or general objections need not be considered by the district
state prisoner who has previously filed a § 2254
petition in federal court must obtain authorization from [the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals] before filing a
‘second or successive' collateral attack on the
same conviction.” Philistin v. Warden, __
Fed.App'x__, 2017 WL 3129105, at *1 (11th Cir. July 24,
2017). “Without authorization, the district court lacks
jurisdiction to consider a successive § 2254 petition
and must dismiss the claims presented therein.”
Id. The Magistrate Judge found that this action
should be dismissed because, “[t]o the extent
Petitioner's notice can be construed as a § 2254
petition, it is impermissibly successive because the court of
appeals has denied Petitioner leave to file another §
2254 petition.” (R&R at 2). The Court finds no
plain error in the Magistrate Judge's determination, and
this action is dismissed.
Magistrate Judge also found that, “[g]iven the court of
appeals' view that Petitioner's notice is a desire to
appeal, the notice should have been docketed as a notice of
appeal in [the Seabolt Action].” (R&R at
3). The Magistrate Judge concluded that, “[l]iberally
construing the notice, Petitioner may intend to appeal the
Court's denial in September 2016 of her Rule 60 motions
in that case.” (R&R at 3). The Magistrate Judge
thus recommends docketing Petitioner's Notice, in the
Seabolt Action, as a notice of appeal of the
Seabolt court's September 2, 2016, Order denying
relief under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendations. The Court of Appeals Clerk sent
the Notice to this Court, intending it to be filed as a
notice of appeal in the Seabolt Action. That it was
docked in ...