DeMudd v. State of Georgia

Filing 4

ORDER APPROVING and ADOPTING 2 Final Report and Recommendation. This action isDISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and a COA is DENIED. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 12/15/2016. (jkl)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION AMON-RA FEIF DEMUDD A NON CORPORATE ENTITY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:16-CV-3708-TWT STATE OF GEORGIA FICTITIOUS FOREIGN STATE, Defendant. ORDER This is a pro se habeas corpus action. It is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 2] of the Magistrate Judge recommending that the action be dismissed based upon Younger abstention. The Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the judgment of the Court. This action is DISMISSED. Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. . . . If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).”Section 2253(c)(2) states that a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional T:\ORDERS\16\DeMudd\16cv3708\r&r.wpd right.” A substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right “includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 15 day of December, 2016. /s/Thomas W. Thrash THOMAS W. THRASH, JR. United States District Judge T:\ORDERS\16\DeMudd\16cv3708\r&r.wpd -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?