Coleman v. Brandon

Full title: DARRYL WILLIAM COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. JUDY BRANDON, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION

Case no: 5:11-cv-131-RJC

Date published: Sep 19, 2012

Fact:

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment on each claim raised by Petitioner in his Petition for Writ of Habeas of Corpus, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons that follow, Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted. 

Issue:

CONCLUSION:

For the reasons stated herein, Respondent is entitled to summary judgment as to each of Petitioner’s claims.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 11).

2. Petitioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. (Doc. No. 13).

3. Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 4).

4. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED. (Doc. No. 1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and Section 2255 Cases, this Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003) (in order to satisfy § 2253(c), 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) (when relief is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must establish both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right). Petitioner has failed to make the required showing.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eight − eight =