Conners v. Alabama Board of Pardon and Paroles et al
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 8/12/2019. (PSM)
FILED
2019 Aug-12 PM 04:11
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES EDWARD CONNERS,
Petitioner,
v.
ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDON
AND PAROLES, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:17-cv-01980-LSC-GMB
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report on May 6, 2019, recommending
Petitioner Charles Edward Conners’s (“Petitioner” or “Conners”) petition for writ
of habeas corpus be denied and this action dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 34).
Petitioner filed objections to the report and recommendation on May 28, 2019.
(Doc. 37).
Petitioner denies he raised a gateway actual innocence claim concerning his
1975 murder conviction (doc. 37 at 1). However, the report and recommendation
need not be rejected even if the magistrate judge incorrectly interpreted Petitioner’s
allegations as a fruitless attempt to state such a claim. (Doc. 34 at 5-6). Conners’s
remaining objections amount to nothing more than a short and highly generalized
repetition of the claims set out in his petition. (Id. at 2-11). None reveal any legal
or factual errors in the report and recommendation.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the
magistrate judge’s report is hereby ADOPTED and the recommendation is
ACCEPTED.
Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Petitioner’s claims for
habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 are due to be DENIED and this
action DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability is due to
be DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED on August 12, 2019.
_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
160704
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?