Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_13-cv-01279/USCOURTS-alnd-4_13-cv-01279-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

SUMNAR ROBERT BREWSTER,

 Petitioner,

v.

GARY HETZEL

and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-01279-RDP-JEO

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 15, 2015, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation, 

recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 13). 

Petitioner Sumnar Robert Brewster filed objections on November 12, 2015. (Doc. 16). The 

court has considered the entire file in this action, together with the Report and Recommendation

and Petitioner’s objections, 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. 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 

FILED

 2016 Aug-29 AM 08:33

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:13-cv-01279-RDP-JEO Document 17 Filed 08/29/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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 and ORDERED this August 29, 2016.

_________________________________

R. DAVID PROCTOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:13-cv-01279-RDP-JEO Document 17 Filed 08/29/16 Page 2 of 2