Barnes v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION as more fully set out therein. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 10/30/2014. (AHI)
2014 Oct-30 PM 04:03
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CARLOS ANTWAN BARNES,
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS and THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
Case Number: CV 14-S-574-W
On October 3, 2014, the magistrate judge entered a Report and
Recommendation,1 recommending that this petition for writ of habeas corpus be
dismissed with prejudice. No objections have been filed.2
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
Doc. no. 9.
The copy of the report and recommendation mailed to the petitioner was returned and no
other address has been provided. (See doc. 10).
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 a
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 encouragement to proceed further.”
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
This court finds that petitioner’s claims do not satisfy either standard.
DONE this 30th day of October, 2014.
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?