White v. Myers, 5:16-cv-02057-LSC-TMP. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20190506756
Visitors: 18
Filed: May 03, 2019
Latest Update: May 03, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION L. SCOTT COOGLER , District Judge . The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on March 28, 2019, recommending the court dismiss as moot Petitioner Carl Douglas White's 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief. (Doc. 6). Although the magistrate judge advised White of his right to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days, no objections have been received by the court. Having carefully considered de novo all the materials in the c
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION L. SCOTT COOGLER , District Judge . The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on March 28, 2019, recommending the court dismiss as moot Petitioner Carl Douglas White's 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief. (Doc. 6). Although the magistrate judge advised White of his right to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days, no objections have been received by the court. Having carefully considered de novo all the materials in the co..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
L. SCOTT COOGLER, District Judge.
The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on March 28, 2019, recommending the court dismiss as moot Petitioner Carl Douglas White's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief. (Doc. 6). Although the magistrate judge advised White of his right to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days, no objections have been received by the court.
Having carefully considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. The court finds that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the above-styled cause is due to be dismissed as moot. A separate order will be entered.
The court may issue a certificate of appealability "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a "petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong," Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), or that "the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). This court finds Petitioner's claims do not satisfy either standard.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
