Bearden v. Walls, No. 2:2017cv02020 - Document 9 (N.D. Ala. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 3/6/18. (SAC )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bearden v. Walls Doc. 9 FILED 2018 Mar-06 AM 11:13 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION RANDALL KEITH BEARDEN, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF SCOTT WALLS, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:17-cv-02020-KOB-JHE MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 12, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (doc. 8), recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice. No objections have been filed. The court has considered the entire file in this action, together with the report and recommendation, and has reached an independent conclusion that the report and recommendation is due to be adopted and approved. 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. The court will enter a separate Final Order. 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 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. Dockets.Justia.com DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of March, 2018. ____________________________________ KARON OWEN BOWDRE CHIEF 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.
