Filed: Sep. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 07, 2018
Summary: RULING AND ORDER BRIAN A. JACKSON , District Judge . Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). The Report and Recommendation addresses Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. (Doc. 1) Petitioner raises four claims for post-conviction relief. First, Petitioner asserts that arresting officers did not advise him of his Miranda rights, did not provide medical tr
Summary: RULING AND ORDER BRIAN A. JACKSON , District Judge . Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). The Report and Recommendation addresses Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. (Doc. 1) Petitioner raises four claims for post-conviction relief. First, Petitioner asserts that arresting officers did not advise him of his Miranda rights, did not provide medical tre..
More
RULING AND ORDER
BRIAN A. JACKSON, District Judge.
Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Report and Recommendation addresses Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1)
Petitioner raises four claims for post-conviction relief. First, Petitioner asserts that arresting officers did not advise him of his Miranda rights, did not provide medical treatment during Petitioner's interrogation and continued interrogating Petitioner after he invoked his right to remain silent, in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Second, Petitioner asserts that arresting officers used excessive force during the arrest and withheld medical treatment thereafter, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Third, Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment right. Finally, Petitioner asserts that the State introduced Petitioner's coerced confession at trial and failed to meet its burden beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law. After a thorough review of the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the petition be denied.
The Report and Recommendation notified the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 836(b)(1), they had fourteen (14) days from the date they received the Report and Recommendation to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations therein. (Doc. 12 at p. 1). Neither party objected.
Having carefully considered the underlying Complaint, the instant motions, and related filings, the Court approves the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and hereby adopts the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12), is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
