Butler v. Sachse
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Michael Butlers "Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person In State Custody" [ECF No. 1 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no Certificate of Appealability will be issued. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 3/10/15. (EAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
MICHAEL JEROME BUTLER,
Case No. 4:12CV00222 ERW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Terry I. Adelman [ECF No. 22], pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court notes no
objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation. After consideration of the issues and
review of the record, the Court hereby sustains, adopts, and incorporates herein the Magistrate’s
Report and Recommendation.
In addition, a certificate of appealability may only be issued when “the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 483 (2000) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)); see also Langley v. Norris, 465 F.3d 861,
863 (8th Cir. 2006). Petitioner has made no such showing. Furthermore, the Court does not
believe reasonable jurists might find the Court’s decision debatable or wrong, for purposes of
issuing a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). See Slack, 529 U.S. at
483-84. Therefore, the Court shall not issue a certificate of appealability as to any claim raised
in the Petition.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Michael Butler’s “Petition Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person In State Custody” [ECF No. 1] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no Certificate of Appealability will be issued.
So Ordered this 10th day of March, 2015.
E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR 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?