Neal v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
MEMORANDUM OF ORDER: the Court is of the opinion that the 21 report is due to be and hereby is ADOPTED, and the recommendation is ACCEPTED; Consequently, the motion filed pursuant to 28 USC 2255 in the above-styled cause is due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable L. Scott Coogler on 6/12/2017. (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
RODERICK DEWAYNE NEAL,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
On May 1, 2017, the magistrate judge filed his report and recommendation in
the above-styled cause, recommending that this motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be denied and this action
dismissed with prejudice. To date, no objections have been filed by either party.
Having now carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation, the Court is of the opinion
that the report is due to be and hereby is ADOPTED, and the recommendation is
ACCEPTED. Consequently, the motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the
above-styled cause is due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Additionally, 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 reasonable jurists 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
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal
quotations omitted). This Court finds that the petitioner’s claims do not satisfy
An order of dismissal will be entered contemporaneously herewith.
DONE and ORDERED on June 12, 2017.
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?