Rogers v. State of Alabama (The) et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the Magistrate Judge's 9 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge James H Hancock on 11/19/2015. (JLC)

Download PDF
FILED 2015 Nov-19 AM 10:04 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION KEITH A. N. ROGERS, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF ALABAMA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 5:15-cv-0704-JHH-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 Keith A. N. Rogers (“Rogers” or “Petitioner”), an Alabama state prisoner acting pro se. The magistrate judge to whom the case was referred for preliminary review has entered a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) that recommends that habeas relief be denied because Petitioner’s habeas claims are barred by the statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). (Doc. 9). No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed, and the time prescribed for doing so has expired. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is due to be DENIED and this action is due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Further, the court concludes that the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, so 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 the 19th day of November, 2015. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?