Lawson v. Thomas et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the 12 Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 1/13/2016. (JLC)

FILED
2016 Jan-13 AM 09:15
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STANLEY ARTHUR LAWSON,
Petitioner,
v.
KIM THOMAS, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-00490-VEH-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 by Stanley Arthur Lawson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se. (Doc. 1).
The magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation on December 17, 2015,
recommending Lawson’s § 2254 petition be denied as barred by the statute of
limitations set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). (Doc. 12). In the alternative, the
magistrate judge recommended Lawson’s Fourth Amendment claims be dismissed as
non-cognizable and his claims that the prosecution failed to disclose favorable evidence
and his attorney rendered ineffective assistance be denied as procedurally defaulted.
(Id.). Finally, in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,
the magistrate judge recommended a certificate of appealability be denied. (Id.).
Lawson was afforded fourteen (14) days to file objections to the report and
1

recommendation. (See id.). More than fourteen (14) days have passed, and the court
has received no objections from Lawson.
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s
report, the court ADOPTS that report and ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s
recommendations. Accordingly, Lawson’s § 2254 petition is due to be denied as timebarred. In the alternative, Lawson’s Fourth Amendment claims are due to be dismissed
as non-cognizable and his claims that the prosecution failed to disclose favorable
evidence and his attorney rendered ineffective assistance are due to be denied as
procedurally defaulted. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth in the report and
recommendation and pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,
a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
A final judgment will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this the 13th day of January, 2016.

VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge

2