Brown v. Price et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 1/30/15. (SAC )
2015 Jan-30 PM 01:06
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SHANNON WAYNE BROWN,
CHERYL PRICE, Warden, and
the ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF ALABAMA,
This habeas corpus case, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, was filed by Shannon Wayne
Brown, an Alabama state prisoner acting pro se. (Doc. 1). On January 5, 2015, the magistrate judge
entered a Report and Recommendation, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), that habeas relief be denied. (Doc.
11). Petitioner has now filed an objection to the Report. (Doc. 12)
In his objection, Petitioner concedes that his only potentially viable claim for review is that his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to jury instructions. (Doc. 12 at 1). In support,
however, Petitioner offers only a conclusory assertion that the magistrate judge’s recommendation
conflicts generally with the standards for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel under
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including
the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and Petitioner’s objections, the court is of the
opinion that the magistrate judge’s findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and his
recommendation is ACCEPTED. Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED. As a result, the
petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be denied and this action is due to DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. Furthermore, 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.
DONE, this the 30th day of January, 2015.
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF 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?