Hammond v. Mitchem, No. 5:2011cv03822 - Document 22 (N.D. Ala. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION as more fully set out therein. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 1/30/2015. (AHI )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hammond v. Mitchem Doc. 22 FILED 2015 Jan-30 AM 11:47 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION JAMES JUNIOR HAMMOND, Petitioner, vs. WARDEN BILLY MITCHEM and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No: CV 11-S-3822-NE MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 5, 2015, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation, (doc. 17), 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. § Dockets.Justia.com 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. DONE this 30th day of January, 2015. ______________________________ 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.
