Curington v. Cain et al
Filing
24
ORDER AND REASONS - the Court DENIES Curington's petition for habeas corpus and DENIES a certificate of appealability.. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 6/29/15.(jjs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KERRY CURINGTON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 13-5258
N. BURL CAIN, WARDEN
SECTION: R(4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Kerry Curington's petition for federal
habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that Curington's petition be dismissed with prejudice.
The Court, having reviewed de novo the petition, the record, the
applicable law, the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"),
and the petitioner's objections thereto, hereby approves the R&R
and adopts it as its opinion.
In his objections, Curington does not challenge the precedent
cited by the Magistrate Judge or raise any arguments disputing the
Magistrate
Judge's
analysis.
Instead,
he
simply
reiterates
a
general objection to each of the Magistrate Judges' conclusions:
Curington contends that because Magistrate Roby's
recommendations on this issue are erroneous, that the
same should be remanded with instructions to conduct an
evidentiary hearing for the introduction of live
testimony and other evidence.1
Although
a
party
who
timely
files
written
objections
to
a
Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation is entitled to a de
novo determination of those findings or recommendations to which
1
R. Doc. 23 at 2.
the party specifically objects, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C),
"[f]rivolous,
conclusive
or
general
objections
need
not
be
considered by the district court." Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d
404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds
by Douglas v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.
1996) (en banc).
Curington has not provided the Court with any
explanation or argument as to why he believes the Magistrate
Judge's recommendations are erroneous.
The Court has reviewed
Curington's petition, the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge's
R&R, and Curington's objections thereto and finds no error in the
Magistrate Judge's recommendations.
Absent identification of any
specific defects in the Magistrate Judge's R&R, the Court finds
that the Magistrate Judge adequately addressed each of Curington's
claims and finds no reason to reiterate the Magistrate Judge's
well-reasoned analysis.
See Julian v. Cain, Civ. A. No. 99-41,
1999 WL 562733, at *1 (E.D. La. July 30, 1999) ("Petitioner does
not grace the Court with any explanation for his assertions or
objections.
As such, the objections need not be considered by the
district court because of their conclusory nature.").
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings
provides
that
"[t]he
district
court
must
issue
or
deny
a
certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse
to
the
applicant."
A
court
may
only
issue
a
certificate
of
appealability if the petitioner makes "a substantial showing of the
2
denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
The
"controlling standard" for a certificate of appealability requires
the petitioner to show "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
[are]
adequate
to
deserve
encouragement
to
proceed
further."
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)) (quotation marks removed).
The Court concludes that Curington's petition fails to satisfy
this standard. Accordingly, the Court will not issue a certificate
of appealability.
For
petition
the
for
foregoing
habeas
reasons,
corpus
the
and
Court
DENIES
DENIES
a
Curington's
certificate
appealability.
29th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of June, 2015.
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
of
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?