Stokes v. Davenport et al
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 5/25/2017. (PSM)
FILED
2017 May-25 PM 03:39
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY WAYNE STOKES,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN CARTER DAVENPORT, et
al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case Number: 2:15-cv-00734-LSC-JHE
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 1, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (doc. 10),
recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice because
the petition had not obtained permission to file a successive petition. 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 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.
DONE and ORDERED on May 25, 2017.
_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
160704
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?