Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-7_13-cv-00683/USCOURTS-alnd-7_13-cv-00683-0/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

WESTERN DIVISION

RICK R MARSHALL,

 Petitioner,

v.

CARTER DAVENPORT and THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF ALABAMA,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No.: 7:13-cv-0683-RDP-SGC

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 2, 2016, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation, 

recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. 10). Petitioner Rick 

R. Marshall was given the opportunity to file objections, but 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 

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-19 AM 09:59

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 7:13-cv-00683-RDP-SGC Document 12 Filed 08/19/16 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 19, 2016.

_________________________________

R. DAVID PROCTOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:13-cv-00683-RDP-SGC Document 12 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 2