Roberts v. Dawson ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION TIFFANY ROBIN ROBERTS, Petitioner, v. 5:21-cv-1370-CLM-NAD AARON DAWSON, et al., Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner Tiffany Robin Roberts filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). The magistrate judge entered a report, recommending the court dismiss Roberts’ petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 6). The magistrate judge advised Roberts that she had 14 days to object to the report and recommendation. But the court hasn’t received any objections. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS his recommendation. So the court will DISMISS Roberts’ petition for writ of habeas corpus WITHOUT PREJUDICE because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings requires the court to “issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” See Rule 11, Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings. This court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has 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. 478, 484 (2000), or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 587 U.S. 322, 336 (2008) Gnternal quotations omitted). The court finds that Roberts’ claims don’t satisfy either standard. So the court will not issue a certificate of appealability. The court will enter a separate final order that carries out this ruling. Done on June 29, 2022. COREY? . MAZE 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE