McFarlin v. Robertson et al, No. 4:2014cv01623 - Document 25 (N.D. Ala. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and APPROVING the 24 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 8/30/2017. (JLC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McFarlin v. Robertson et al Doc. 25 FILED 2017 Aug-30 PM 12:19 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION TORIEN TEREZ MCFARLIN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE ) STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) Case Number: 4:14-cv-01623-VEH-JHE MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 2, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (doc. 24), recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with 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. 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 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.” Dockets.Justia.com 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 30th day of August, 2017. VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS United States District Judge
]]>
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.
