Filed: Jun. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 25, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION ABDUL K. KALLON , District Judge . Petitioner, Jimmy Darren McKleroy, filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus, pro se, doc. 1, challenging the voluntariness and legality of his 2009 guilty plea and sentence for first degree sodomy, doc. 3 at 3-5. On May 10, 2019, the magistrate judge to whom the case was referred filed a report recommending the dismissal of the petition with prejudice. Doc. 14. Although the court notified McKleroy of his right to file objections
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION ABDUL K. KALLON , District Judge . Petitioner, Jimmy Darren McKleroy, filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus, pro se, doc. 1, challenging the voluntariness and legality of his 2009 guilty plea and sentence for first degree sodomy, doc. 3 at 3-5. On May 10, 2019, the magistrate judge to whom the case was referred filed a report recommending the dismissal of the petition with prejudice. Doc. 14. Although the court notified McKleroy of his right to file objections w..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ABDUL K. KALLON, District Judge.
Petitioner, Jimmy Darren McKleroy, filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus, pro se, doc. 1, challenging the voluntariness and legality of his 2009 guilty plea and sentence for first degree sodomy, doc. 3 at 3-5. On May 10, 2019, the magistrate judge to whom the case was referred filed a report recommending the dismissal of the petition with prejudice. Doc. 14. Although the court notified McKleroy of his right to file objections within 14 days, that time has expired and no objections have been filed.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge's report is hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Further, because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, a certificate of appealability is also due to be DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings. A separate Final Order will be entered.
