Jett v. Forniss et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 1/5/2015. (AVC)

Download PDF
FILED 2015 Jan-05 AM 11:25 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION XAVIER JETT, Petitioner, v. WARDEN LEON FORNISS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) Case No: 2:14-cv-01870-VEH-JHE ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION On December 1, 2014, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (doc. 6), recommending that this petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice. The magistrate judge further recommended Petitioner’s motion to hold in abeyance, (doc. 5), be denied. (Doc. 6). 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 hereby 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. A separate Order will be entered. 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 a reasonable jurist would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable and 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. DONE this the 5th day of January, 2015. VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS 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?