Conners v. Alabama Board of Pardon and Paroles et al, No. 2:2017cv01980 - Document 39 (N.D. Ala. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 8/12/2019. (PSM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Conners v. Alabama Board of Pardon and Paroles et al Doc. 39 FILED 2019 Aug-12 PM 04:11 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION CHARLES EDWARD CONNERS, Petitioner, v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDON AND PAROLES, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:17-cv-01980-LSC-GMB MEMORANDUM OPINION The magistrate judge filed a report on May 6, 2019, recommending Petitioner Charles Edward Conners’s (“Petitioner” or “Conners”) petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and this action dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 34). Petitioner filed objections to the report and recommendation on May 28, 2019. (Doc. 37). Petitioner denies he raised a gateway actual innocence claim concerning his 1975 murder conviction (doc. 37 at 1). However, the report and recommendation need not be rejected even if the magistrate judge incorrectly interpreted Petitioner’s allegations as a fruitless attempt to state such a claim. (Doc. 34 at 5-6). Conners’s remaining objections amount to nothing more than a short and highly generalized Dockets.Justia.com repetition of the claims set out in his petition. (Id. at 2-11). None reveal any legal or factual errors in the report and recommendation. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the magistrate judge’s report is hereby ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Petitioner’s claims for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 are due to be DENIED and this action DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability is due to be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED on August 12, 2019. _____________________________ L. Scott Coogler United States District Judge 160704 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.
