Gunns v. Billups et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 3/9/2016. (PSM)
2016 Mar-09 PM 03:30
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CHRISTOPHER RAMON GUNNS,
WARDEN PHYLLIS BILLUPS and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
) Case Number: 2:15-cv-01031-LSC-JHE
On February 11, 2016, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation,
recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 19).
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. For the reasons stated in the
report and recommendation, the petitioner’s “Motion Not to Dismiss Petition as Untimely Under
28 U.S.C. 2244” (doc. 6) is hereby DENIED. 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 March 9, 2016.
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
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?