Anderson v. Rathman
MEMORANDUM OPINION as more fully set out in order. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 05/30/14. (SPT )
2014 May-30 PM 02:52
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JOHN T. RATHMAN,
) Case Number: 1:14-cvB00709-CLS) JHE
On May 2, 2014, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation
(doc. 6), recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed
without prejudice. Petitioner filed his objection on May 29, 2014 (doc. 9). The Court
has considered the entire file in this action, together with the report and
recommendation, and has reached an independent conclusion that the report and
recommendation is due to be adopted and approved.
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.
To the extent 28 U.S.C. § 2253 is made applicable by the Court treating the
petition as a motion pursuant to § 2255, the Court finds issuance of a certificate of
appealability inappropriate. This Court may issue a certificate of appealability “only
if the applicant has a made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2).
To make such a showing, a “petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurist 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
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 30th day of May, 2014.
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?