From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carter v. Larkins

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
Sep 23, 2009
Case No. 4:07CV1581 CDP (E.D. Mo. Sep. 23, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 4:07CV1581 CDP.

September 23, 2009


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


This matter is before the Court on the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by petitioner Chad C. Carter. The Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Ann L. Medler for a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Judge Medler recommended that petitioner's habeas petition should be denied. Petitioner timely objected to the Report and Recommendation.

I have conducted a de novo review of all matters relevant to the petition. After careful consideration, I will adopt and sustain Judge Medler's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. In particular, I agree that petitioner's second claim for relief is procedurally barred, and that his first claim fails on the merits, for the reasons stated by Judge Medler.

I have also considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. To grant a certificate of appealability, the Court must find a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. See Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir. 1997). A substantial showing is a showing that issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings.Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997) (citing Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 882-83 (8th Cir. 1994)). Because petitioner has not made such a showing, I will not issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [#9] is adopted and sustained in its entirety.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Chad C. Carter's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [#1] is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.

A separate judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order is entered this same date.


Summaries of

Carter v. Larkins

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
Sep 23, 2009
Case No. 4:07CV1581 CDP (E.D. Mo. Sep. 23, 2009)
Case details for

Carter v. Larkins

Case Details

Full title:CHAD C. CARTER, Petitioner, v. STEVE LARKINS, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

Date published: Sep 23, 2009

Citations

Case No. 4:07CV1581 CDP (E.D. Mo. Sep. 23, 2009)

Citing Cases

Maxwell v. Larkins

Civil commitment under the SVP Act did not definitely, immediately, and largely automatically follow the…

Fugitt v. United States

Civil commitment does not definitely, immediately, and largely automatically follow Movant's guilty plea; in…