Pinckney v. Rathman, No. 1:2012cv04086 - Document 26 (N.D. Ala. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 8/10/15. (MRR )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pinckney v. Rathman Doc. 26 FILED 2015 Aug-11 AM 11:04 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION RICHARD L. PINCHKEY, Petitioner, v. WARDEN JOHN T. RATHMAN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case Number: 1:12-cvB04086-SLB-JHE MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 30, 2015, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (doc. 22), recommending that this petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied, and the action be dismissed with prejudice. The petitioner has submitted objections. (Doc. 25). The court has considered the entire file in this action, together with the report and recommendation and objections thereto, and has reached an independent conclusion that the report and recommendation is due to be adopted and approved. Petitioner’s objections do not rebut the conclusions that he has no constitutionally protectable interest in a particular BOP classification and that he was given a security designation in accordance with regulations. Accordingly, the court hereby adopts and approves the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge as the findings and conclusions of this court. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be DISMISSED. A separate Order will be entered. This Court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has a made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a “petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s Dockets.Justia.com assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). This Court finds Petitioner’s claims do not satisfy either standard. DONE this 10th day of August, 2015. SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
