FOREMAN v. JONES, 2:14-cv-785-RDP-JEO. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20150923753
Visitors: 32
Filed: Sep. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION R. DAVID PROCTOR , District Judge . On August 3, 2015, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. No objections were filed. After careful consideration of the record in this case and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge. The court further ACCEP
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION R. DAVID PROCTOR , District Judge . On August 3, 2015, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. No objections were filed. After careful consideration of the record in this case and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge. The court further ACCEPT..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
R. DAVID PROCTOR, District Judge.
On August 3, 2015, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. No objections were filed.
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge. The court further ACCEPTS the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner's § 2254 habeas application be denied on the ground that its claims are both time barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and unexhausted and procedurally defaulted under 28 U.S. C. § 2254(b).
A separate order in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
