Adams v. Frink

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 1/3/18. (jtm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
KENNETH J. ADAMS
V.

PETITIONER
NO. 4:16-CV-229-DMB-RP

WARDEN MARTIN FRINK

RESPONDENT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 5, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Roy Percy issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Kenneth J. Adams’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of
habeas corpus “be denied for want of substantive merit.” Doc. #14 at 5. The Report and
Recommendation warned that failure to file written objections within fourteen days would limit
review of the Report and Recommendation to plain error. Id. at 5–6. A copy of the Report and
Recommendation was mailed to Adams at his address listed on the Court’s docket. No objections
to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.
Where objections to a report and recommendation have been filed, a court must conduct a
de novo review of the report and recommendation to which objections have been specifically
raised. Gauthier v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 644 F.Supp.2d 824, 828 (E.D. Tex. 2009). Where no
objections have been raised, “the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no plain error on the
face of the record.” Id. (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th
Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation for plain error, and having found
none, the Report and Recommendation [14] is ADOPTED. Adams’ petition for a writ of habeas
corpus [1] is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED.
This Court must “issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order
adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the

United States District Courts. A certificate of appealability (“COA”) will issue “only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). For cases rejected on their merits, a movant seeking a COA “must demonstrate that
reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable
or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Based on the Slack criteria, the Court
finds that a COA should not issue in this case.
A final judgment consistent with this opinion will issue separately.
SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of January, 2018.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2