Braggs v. State of Mississippi

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 20 Report and Recommendations, 14 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by David Keon Braggs Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 3/28/2017. [Copy mailed to Braggs]. (cwl)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION DAVID KEON BRAGGS VS. PETITIONER CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-00511-CWR-FKB STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on Petitioner=s Objection to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Keith Ball entered on February 6, 2017, dismissing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254. Having considered said Report and Recommendation, Petitioner=s objections thereto, applicable statutory and case law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court concludes that Petitioner=s objection is without merit and hereby adopts, as its own opinion, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball entered on February 6, 2017, and the same is hereby, adopted as the finding of this Court. The matter shall be dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, because Petitioner has not established that Ajurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and . . . whether [this] court was correct in its procedural ruling,@ Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), no Certificate of Appealability shall issue. A separate Final Judgment will be entered in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SO ORDERED, this the 28th day of March, 2017. s/ Carlton W. Reeves UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?