Landrum v. Steele
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) After consideration of the issues and review of the record, the Court hereby sustains, adopts, and incorporates herein the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation 13 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Terrish Landrum's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 08/21/2014. (CBL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Case No. 4:13CV0179 ERW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Nannette A. Baker [ECF No. 13], pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court notes
that 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 that 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
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Terrish Landrum’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
So Ordered this21st day of August, 2014.
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?