Lawson v. Thomas et al, No. 2:2013cv00490 - Document 13 (N.D. Ala. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the 12 Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 1/13/2016. (JLC)
Download PDF
Lawson v. Thomas et al Doc. 13 FILED 2016 Jan-13 AM 09:15 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION STANLEY ARTHUR LAWSON, Petitioner, v. KIM THOMAS, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:13-cv-00490-VEH-SGC MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Stanley Arthur Lawson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se. (Doc. 1). The magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation on December 17, 2015, recommending Lawson’s § 2254 petition be denied as barred by the statute of limitations set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). (Doc. 12). In the alternative, the magistrate judge recommended Lawson’s Fourth Amendment claims be dismissed as non-cognizable and his claims that the prosecution failed to disclose favorable evidence and his attorney rendered ineffective assistance be denied as procedurally defaulted. (Id.). Finally, in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the magistrate judge recommended a certificate of appealability be denied. (Id.). Lawson was afforded fourteen (14) days to file objections to the report and 1 Dockets.Justia.com recommendation. (See id.). More than fourteen (14) days have passed, and the court has received no objections from Lawson. After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s report, the court ADOPTS that report and ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s recommendations. Accordingly, Lawson’s § 2254 petition is due to be denied as timebarred. In the alternative, Lawson’s Fourth Amendment claims are due to be dismissed as non-cognizable and his claims that the prosecution failed to disclose favorable evidence and his attorney rendered ineffective assistance are due to be denied as procedurally defaulted. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth in the report and recommendation and pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. A final judgment will be entered. DONE and ORDERED this the 13th day of January, 2016. VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS United States District Judge 2