Creel v. Daniels, No. 5:2016cv00803 - Document 10 (N.D. Ala. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 5/11/2018. (PSM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Creel v. Daniels Doc. 10 FILED 2018 May-11 PM 03:33 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION HOWARD LYNN CREEL, Petitioner, v. WARDEN LEE POSEY DANIELS, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 5:16-cv-00803-LSC-JEO MEMORANDUM OPINION On or about May 13, 2016, Howard Creel, an Alabama state prisoner, filed this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). On April 12, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b)(1), recommending that the action be dismissed with prejudice on the ground that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). (Doc. 9). Despite being afforded an opportunity to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the petitioner has not filed any objections. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the respondent’s motion for summary dismissal is due to be GRANTED. Creel’s Dockets.Justia.com petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be DENIED and this action is due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Furthermore, because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, the court concludes that a certificate of appealability is also due to be DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rule 11(a), RULES GOVERNING § 2254 PROCEEDINGS. A separate final judgment will be entered. DONE and ORDERED on May 11, 2018. _____________________________ 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.
