Phelps v. Davenport et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION, as set out, ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. A separate final judgment will be entered. Signed by Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 5/13/14. (CTS, )

FILED
2014 May-13 PM 02:54
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL JOSEPH PHELPS,
Petitioner,
v.
CARTER DAVENPORT and the
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondents,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

5:13-cv-0273-SLB-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 by Michael Joseph Phelps, an Alabama state prisoner acting pro se. (See Doc. 1). On
April 16, 2014, the magistrate judge entered a report (Doc. 15) with findings and a
recommendation that the court deny the petition, as well as the petitioner’s associated motions
for judgment. (Docs. 12 & 14). Phelps has now filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation. (Doc. 16).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file,
including the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge and the petitioner’s objection
thereto, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s report is due to be and is hereby
ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. Although Phelps’s objections are
voluminous, the court concludes that the arguments raised therein are adequately addressed by
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. In addition, the court would note that
although the magistrate judge liberally construed Phelps’s pro se filings as including a claim that

his guilty plea was invalid based on intoxication, Phelps has now affirmatively disclaimed that he
was ever seeking federal habeas relief on that theory. (Doc. 16 at 9). Phelps’s objections are
OVERRULED. As a result, this action is due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Furthermore, because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of
reason, the court concludes that a certificate of appealability is also due to be DENIED. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rule 11(a), RULES
GOVERNING § 2254 PROCEEDINGS.
A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 13th day of May, 2014.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2