Brooks v. Rathman

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION as more fully set out in order. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 08/28/17. (SPT )

Download PDF
FILED 2017 Aug-28 PM 12:24 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION MAURICE NAVARRO BROOKS, Petitioner, vs. WARDEN JOHN T. RATHMAN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-01478-CLS-JHE MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 12, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (doc. 24), recommending that this petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. No objections have been filed. 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 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. 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. A final order consistent with this memorandum opinion will be entered. DONE this 28th day of August, 2017. ______________________________ United States District Judge 2

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?