Burgess v. Baldwin et al, No. 4:2021cv00741 - Document 12 (N.D. Ala. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 3/7/2022. (KAM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Burgess v. Baldwin et al Doc. 12 FILED 2022 Mar-07 AM 10:05 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION DARRELL DONZELL BURGESS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN ROLANDA CALLOWAY, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:21-cv-00741-RDP-NAD ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner Darrell Donzell Burgess has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). On February 10, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation advising the court to deny Burgess’ petition and dismiss the petition with prejudice. (Doc. 11). Although the Magistrate Judge informed Burgess of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation within 14 days, the court has not received objections. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the Report and Recommendation, the court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and ACCEPTS his Recommendation. Accordingly, Burgess’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus is due to be denied and dismissed with prejudice. This court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has 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). The court finds Burgess’ claims do not satisfy either standard. The court will enter a separate Final Judgment. DONE and ORDERED this March 7, 2022. _________________________________ 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.
