Tuten v. Wilcher et al

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING the 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as the Court's opinion, dismissing Tuten's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition, discerning no COA-worthy issues at this stage of the litigation, so no COA should issue, denying IFP status on appeal, and directing the Clerk of Court to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and to close this case. Signed by District Judge R. Stan Baker on 07/28/2022. (jlh)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION NASH N. TUTEN, Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:22-cv-92 v. SHERIFF JOHN WILCHER, and DEPUTY POPE, Respondent. ORDER After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 6.) Petitioner Nash N. Tuten did not file Objections to the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court and DISMISSES Tuten’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition. Applying the Certificate of Appealability (COA) standards, which are set forth in Brown v. United States, 2009 WL 307872 at * 1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009), the Court discerns no COA-worthy issues at this stage of the litigation, so no COA should issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000) (approving sua sponte denial of COA before movant filed a notice of appeal). And, as there are no nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Thus, in forma pauperis status on appeal is likewise DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED, this 28th day of July, 2022. R. STAN BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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?