Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-1_14-cv-00709/USCOURTS-alnd-1_14-cv-00709-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

LASHAWN LORENZA

ANDERSON,

 Petitioner,

v.

JOHN T. RATHMAN,

 Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case Number: 1:14-cvB00709-CLSJHE

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 2, 2014, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation

(doc. 6), recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed

without prejudice. Petitioner filed his objection on May 29, 2014 (doc. 9). 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 ofthe magistrate judge asthe findings and conclusions ofthisCourt. 

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be DISMISSED. A separate Order

will be entered. 

FILED

 2014 May-30 PM 02:52

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:14-cv-00709-CLS-JHE Document 10 Filed 05/30/14 Page 1 of 2
To the extent 28 U.S.C. § 2253 is made applicable by the Court treating the

petition as a motion pursuant to § 2255, the Court finds issuance of a certificate of

appealability inappropriate. 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 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 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 May, 2014.

______________________________

United States District Judge

Case 1:14-cv-00709-CLS-JHE Document 10 Filed 05/30/14 Page 2 of 2