Fann v. Hetzel et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 5/12/2014. (PSM)

Download PDF
FILED 2014 May-12 AM 09:29 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION CHARLES EDWARD FANN, Petitioner, v. GARY HETZEL, Warden, and the ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:14-cv-0746-AKK-JEO MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a habeas corpus case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Charles Edward Fann, an Alabama state prisoner acting pro se. Doc. 1. On April 28, 2014, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending that the petition be denied and that the action be dismissed with prejudice, on the ground that Fann’s claims are both time barred and without merit. Doc. 4. Fann has now filed a timely objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Doc. 5. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge and the petitioner’s objection thereto, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. The court further concludes that the arguments raised in Fann’s objections are adequately addressed by the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Accordingly, those objections are OVERRULED. As a result, this action is due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Furthermore, because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, the court concludes that 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, this 12th day of May, 2014. ________________________________ ABDUL K. KALLON 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?