Keenum v. Mitchem et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 6/3/2014. (KAM, )

FILED
2014 Jun-03 AM 11:42
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
DOUGLAS LOUIS KEENUM,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN BILLY MITCHEM and THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF ALABAMA,

)
)
)
)
) Case Number: 5:11-cv-02460-LSC
)
)
)
)
)

Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 22, 2014, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (doc. 11),
recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice. A copy of
the report and recommendation was mailed to Petitioner at his last known address, but returned as
undeliverable. (Doc. 12). A search of the Alabama Department of Corrections online database
indicates Petitioner is no longer incarcerated. See http://doc.state.us/InmateInfo.aspx. Petitioner has
failed to provide the Court with an updated address. Accordingly, 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 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 3rd day of June 2014.

L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
[160704]

Page 2 of 2