Filed: May 22, 2018
Latest Update: May 22, 2018
Summary: ORDER SIDNEY A. FITZWATER , District Judge . After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the April 2, 2018 findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and petitioner's April 16, 2018 objections, the court concludes the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered that petitioner's objections are overruled, the recommendation of the magistrate judge is adopted, and the petition for a writ of
Summary: ORDER SIDNEY A. FITZWATER , District Judge . After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the April 2, 2018 findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and petitioner's April 16, 2018 objections, the court concludes the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered that petitioner's objections are overruled, the recommendation of the magistrate judge is adopted, and the petition for a writ of ..
More
ORDER
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER, District Judge.
After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the April 2, 2018 findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and petitioner's April 16, 2018 objections, the court concludes the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered that petitioner's objections are overruled, the recommendation of the magistrate judge is adopted, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court denies a certificate of appealability. The court adopts and incorporates by reference the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that the petitioner has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this court's "assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong," or (2) that reasonable jurists would find "it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right" and "debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
If petitioner files a notice of appeal,
(X) petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
( ) petitioner must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
SO ORDERED.
