Adams v. Hobbs

Filing 8

ORDER APROVING AND ADOPTING 7 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with prejudice; denying all pending motions as moot; and denying the certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 10/15/2014. (rhm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION BILLY TERRELL ADAMS ADC #101322 v. PETITIONER Case No. 5:14-cv-00067-KGB-JTK RAY HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT ORDER The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 7). No objections have been filed, and the time for filing objections has passed. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. It is therefore ordered that petitioner Billy Terrell Adams’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice. The requested relief is denied, and all pending motions are denied as moot. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2554 Cases in the United States District Court, the Court must determine whether to issue a certificate of appealability. In § 2254 cases, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). The Court finds no issue on which Mr. Adams has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Thus, the certificate of appealability is denied. SO ORDERED this the 15th day of October, 2014. ________________________________ KRISTINE G. BAKER 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?