Trantham v. State of Alabama et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 4/26/2016. (AVC)

FILED
2016 Apr-26 AM 09:40
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
HARVEY J. TRANTHAM,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF ALABAMA, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-0537-RDP-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
by Harvey J. Trantham (“Petitioner”), an Alabama state prisoner acting pro se. The Magistrate Judge
to whom the case was referred for preliminary review has entered a Report and Recommendation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) that recommends that habeas relief be denied because Petitioner’s
habeas claims are barred as being successive since there is no permission to proceed from the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). (Doc. 9). No objections to the Report
and Recommendation have been filed, and the time prescribed for doing so has expired.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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.
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is due to be denied and this action is due to be
dismissed without prejudice. Further, the court concludes that the petition does not present issues
that are debatable among jurists of reason, so 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 Judgment will be entered.

DONE and ORDERED this

26th

day of April, 2016.

___________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2