Carter v. Rathman
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 9/21/17. (SAC )
2017 Sep-21 PM 12:45
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CHRISTOPHER SAMUEL CARTER,
W. T. TAYLOR,
Case No.: 1:14-cv-01180-KOB-SGC
On September 1, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending
the petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc.
1) be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 17).
Petitioner Christopher Carter was granted fourteen days to respond with any
objections. To date, no objections have been received.
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate
judge’s report, the court ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge and
ACCEPTS her recommendations.
The court will dismiss the petition with
To the extent a certificate of appealability is required by Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules Governing 2255 Proceedings, a certificate of appealability is
DENIED. A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. §
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 quotation omitted).
Based on the magistrate judge’s findings and discussion, the court finds that
Petitioner has failed to make the requisite showing and will issue no certificate of
The court will enter a separate Final Order.
DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 2017.
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?