Jackson v. State of Alabama et al, No. 7:2017cv01119 - Document 14 (N.D. Ala. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 8/10/2018. (PSM)

Download PDF
Jackson v. State of Alabama et al Doc. 14 FILED 2018 Aug-10 PM 03:50 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA WESTERN DIVISION JAMES KARROLL JACKSON, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., Respondents. Case No.: 7:17-cv-01119-LSC-TMP MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action for a writ of habeas corpus action filed by petitioner James Karroll Jackson, pro se, on or about June 29, 2017. (Doc. 1). The petitioner challenges his 1982 conviction for burglary 2nd degree and life sentence. (Id., at 2). On July 17, 2018, the magistrate judge to whom the case was referred entered a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that habeas relief be denied. (Doc. 13). Although the petitioner was notified of his right to file objections within fourteen (14) days, no objections have been filed with the court. 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 petition 1 Dockets.Justia.com for writ of habeas corpus is due to be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Further, because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, 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 Order will be entered. DONE and ORDERED on August 10, 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.