Pinckney v. Rathman
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 8/10/15. (MRR )
2015 Aug-11 AM 11:04
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
RICHARD L. PINCHKEY,
WARDEN JOHN T. RATHMAN,
Case Number: 1:12-cvB04086-SLB-JHE
On June 30, 2015, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (doc. 22),
recommending that this petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied, and the action be dismissed
with prejudice. The petitioner has submitted objections. (Doc. 25).
The court has considered the entire file in this action, together with the report and
recommendation and objections thereto, and has reached an independent conclusion that the report
and recommendation is due to be adopted and approved. Petitioner’s objections do not rebut the
conclusions that he has no constitutionally protectable interest in a particular BOP classification and
that he was given a security designation in accordance with regulations.
Accordingly, the court hereby adopts and approves the findings and recommendation of the
magistrate judge as the findings and conclusions of this court. The petition for writ of habeas corpus
is due to be DISMISSED. A separate Order will be entered.
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 or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000), or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,”
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). This Court finds
Petitioner’s claims do not satisfy either standard.
DONE this 10th day of August, 2015.
SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
SENIOR 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?