Garcia v. Nielson et al, No. 2:2013cv01483 - Document 7 (N.D. Ala. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 7/25/2016. (AVC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Garcia v. Nielson et al Doc. 7 FILED 2016 Jul-25 PM 02:57 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION BERGELINO GARCIA, Petitioner, v. ROBERT NIELSON, WARDEN, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:13-cv-1483-RDP-JEO MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Bergelino Garcia, an Alabama state prisoner who filed this case pro se. (Doc. 1-1). On June 20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Doc. 6). The Magistrate Judge has recommended that habeas relief be denied and that the action be dismissed with prejudice because Petitioner’s claims are unexhausted and now procedurally defaulted. (Id.) No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, and the time prescribed for doing so has expired. After carefully reviewing and considering de novo all the materials in the court file, including the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the court determines the Magistrate Judge’s findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is due to be denied and this action is due to be dismissed with prejudice. Further, the court concludes that the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, so a certificate of appealability is also due to be denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rule 11(a), RULES Dockets.Justia.com GOVERNING § 2254 PROCEEDINGS. A separate Final Order will be entered. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of July, 2016. ___________________________________ R. DAVID PROCTOR 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.
