Mims v. Daniel et al, No. 7:2014cv00046 - Document 14 (N.D. Ala. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 6/5/14. (SAC )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED 2014 Jun-05 PM 02:57 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA WESTERN DIVISION HASALEE MIMS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN LEE POSEY DANIELS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA, ) ) ) ) ) Case Number: 7:14-cvB00046-WMA-JHE ) ) ) ) ) Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION On May 2, 2014, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (doc. 11), recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice. The Report and Recommendation was returned as undeliverable marked Moved-no address. (Doc. 12). Thereafter, the court received a notice of change of address from Petitioner. (Doc. 13). On May 15, 2014, the court resent the Report and Recommendation to Petitioner at the newly provided address. The time to object to the Report and Recommendation has passed, and 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 substnaital showing of the dentail of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurist would find the district court s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable and wrong, Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000),or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragerment 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 5th day of June, 2014. ________________________ WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR. 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.
