Creel v. Daniels

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 5/11/2018. (PSM)

FILED
2018 May-11 PM 03:33
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
HOWARD LYNN CREEL,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN LEE POSEY DANIELS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:16-cv-00803-LSC-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On or about May 13, 2016, Howard Creel, an Alabama state prisoner, filed
this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). On April 12,
2018, the magistrate judge entered a report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b)(1), recommending that the action be dismissed with prejudice
on the ground that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1). (Doc. 9). Despite being afforded an opportunity to object to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation, the petitioner has not filed any objections.
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

respondent’s motion for summary dismissal is due to be GRANTED. Creel’s

petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be DENIED and 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 and ORDERED on May 11, 2018.

_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
160704

2