Reeves v. State of Alabama et al
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge James H Hancock on 6/9/2014. (AVC)
FILED
2014 Jun-09 AM 10:42
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
RICHARD KYLE REEVES,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF ALABAMA and THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF ALABAMA,
)
)
)
)
) Case Number: 4:13-cvB01360-JHH-JHE
)
)
)
)
)
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 15, 2014, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (doc. 10),
recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice. The time to
object to the Report and Recommendation has passed, and 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
substnaital showing of the dentail of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). To make such
a showing, a “petitioner must demonstrate that 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 encouragerment 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 9th
day of June, 2014.
SENIOR 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?