Roberts v. Norman
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Bakers Report and Recommendation filed on August 12, 2013 is adopted and sustained in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Kyle Robertss Petition for Writ of Ha beas Corpus is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. A separate Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order is entered this same date. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 8/29/13. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
KYLE A. ROBERTS,
Case No. 4:10-cv-1421 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner
Kyle Roberts. I referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Nannette Baker for a
report and recommendation on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). On
August 12, 2013, Judge Baker filed her recommendation that Roberts’s habeas petition should be
No formal “objections” to Judge Baker’s Report & Recommendation were filed. On
August 19, 2013, petitioner filed what he titled a “Motion for Leave” (#18). It is not clear just
for what petitioner seeks leave, but the Court will treat it as an objection to the Report &
After careful consideration, I will adopt and sustain the thorough reasoning of Judge
Baker and deny petitioner’s habeas petition for the reasons stated in the Report and
Recommendation dated August 12, 2013. Petitioner’s “Motion for Leave” alleges various
circumstances that led to his arrest and eventual guilty plea, but petitioner does not address Judge
Baker’s reasoning or matters pertinent to her analysis. Notably, petitioner states “ I admit I
should be in jail but for this duration is an absurdity and abomination. I am a non-violent inmate,
the material stolen was not from an upstanding citizen.” Essentially, petitioner argues that he
stole a vehicle that had not been purchased with “clean money.” Petitioner’s objections to the
Report & Recommendation are without merit.
I have also considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. To grant a certificate
of appealability, the Court must find a substantial showing of the denial of a federal
constitutional right. See Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir. 1997). A substantial
showing is a showing that issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, a Court could resolve
the issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings. Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569
(8th Cir. 1997) (citing Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 882-83 (8th Cir. 1994). Because petitioner
has not made such a showing in this case, I will not issue a certificate of appealability
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Baker’s Report and Recommendation filed
on August 12, 2013 is adopted and sustained in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Kyle Roberts’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
A separate Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order is entered this
Dated this 29th day of August, 2013.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
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?