CAUSEY v. GORDY, 1:13-cv-0915-RDP-JEO. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20150804882
Visitors: 29
Filed: Aug. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 03, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION R. DAVID PROCTOR , District Judge . This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and 2254 by Aaron D. Causey, an Alabama state prisoner acting pro se. (Doc. 1). On June 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge assigned this case entered a report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(1) recommending that the action be denied and dismissed. (Doc. 15). No objections have been filed. Having carefully reviewed
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION R. DAVID PROCTOR , District Judge . This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and 2254 by Aaron D. Causey, an Alabama state prisoner acting pro se. (Doc. 1). On June 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge assigned this case entered a report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(1) recommending that the action be denied and dismissed. (Doc. 15). No objections have been filed. Having carefully reviewed a..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
R. DAVID PROCTOR, District Judge.
This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254 by Aaron D. Causey, an Alabama state prisoner acting pro se. (Doc. 1). On June 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge assigned this case entered a report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(1) recommending that the action be denied and dismissed. (Doc. 15). No objections have been filed.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge's findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. As a result, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be denied and this action is due to be dismissed with prejudice. Further, because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, a certificate of appealability is also due to be denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rule 11(a), RULES GOVERNING § 2254 PROCEEDINGS. A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
