Biggart v. Marshall ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION THOMAS STERLING BIGGART, ) JR., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:21-cv-01272-LSC-JHE ) ATTORNEY GENERAL STEVE ) MARSHALL, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner Thomas Sterling Biggart, Jr. has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). On January 25, 2023, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending that the court grant the respondents’ motion for summary dismissal and dismiss the petition with prejudice. (Doc. 11). No objections have been filed. After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s report, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. Consistent with that recommendation, the court finds that the respondents’ motion for summary dismissal is due to be granted and Biggart’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1) is due to be dismissed with prejudice. This court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional nght.” 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 further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). The court finds Biggart’s claims do not satisfy either standard. A final judgment will be entered. DONE and ORDERED on February 24, 2023. XS United States District Judge 160704