Bearden v. Walls, 2:17-cv-02020-KOB-JHE. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20180307888
Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 06, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION KARON OWEN BOWDRE , Chief District Judge . On January 12, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (doc. 8), recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice. No objections have been filed. The court has considered the entire file in this action, together with the report and recommendation, and has reached an independent conclusion that the report and recommendation is due to be adopted and approved. According
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION KARON OWEN BOWDRE , Chief District Judge . On January 12, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (doc. 8), recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice. No objections have been filed. The court has considered the entire file in this action, together with the report and recommendation, and has reached an independent conclusion that the report and recommendation is due to be adopted and approved. Accordingl..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KARON OWEN BOWDRE, Chief District Judge.
On January 12, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (doc. 8), recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice. No objections have been filed. The court has considered the entire file in this action, together with the report and recommendation, and has reached an independent conclusion that the report and recommendation is due to be adopted and approved.
Accordingly, the court hereby adopts and approves the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge as the findings and conclusions of this court. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be DISMISSED. The court will enter a separate Final Order.
This Court may issue a certificate of appealability "only if the applicant has a 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
