STOKES v. JONES, 2:14-cvB00270-VEH-JHE. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20140829q30
Visitors: 18
Filed: Aug. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 29, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge. On July 28, 2014, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation (doc. 8) recommending that this petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with 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 cou
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge. On July 28, 2014, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation (doc. 8) recommending that this petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with 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 cour..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge.
On July 28, 2014, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation (doc. 8) recommending that this petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with 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. A separate Order will be entered.
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 a reasonable jurist would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable and 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.
Source: Leagle
