Wilson v. Hooks et al (INMATE1)

Filing 36

ORDER that: (1) Mr. Wilson's 35 Objection is OVERRULED; (2) The 34 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION is ADOPTED; Mr. Wilson's 1 Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 is DENIED, and; (4) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 9/15/2009. (dmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T E R N DIVISION T O M M Y LEE WILSON, A IS #225500, P e titio n e r, v. R A L P H HOOKS, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A S E NO. 3:06-CV-751-WKW

ORDER On August 17, 2009 the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation

(" R e c o m m e n d a tio n " ) in this case. (Doc. # 34.) Petitioner Tommy Lee Wilson filed an O b je c tio n to the Recommendation on September 3, 2009. (Doc. # 35.) The court has c o n d u c te d an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to w h ic h objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). M r. Wilson's Objection fails to identify specific points of disagreement with the R e c o m m e n d a tio n . Mr. Wilson does not explain how he can overcome the

R e c o m m e n d a tio n 's finding that all but one of his grounds for habeas relief are procedurally b a rre d by his failure to exhaust them in state court. (Doc. # 34, at 12-13, 22-26.) The only s u rv iv in g ground for relief is Mr. Wilson's claim that the evidence at his trial was c o n s titu tio n a lly insufficient to support the verdict against him, in contravention of Jackson v . Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979). As the Recommendation states, Mr. Wilson has m a d e no showing that the state court's resolution of this issue fell below the highly

deferential standard of review to be applied in federal habeas corpus proceedings. (Doc. #34, a t 17-19.) Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1 ) Mr. Wilson's Objection (Doc. # 35) is OVERRULED; (2 ) The Recommendation (Doc. # 34) is ADOPTED; (3) Mr. Wilson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is D E N IE D , and; (4 ) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. D O N E this 15th day of September, 2009. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2