IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
ANTHONY BURNETT, )
Petitioner,
Vv. CV 125-256
MICHAEL GRAHAM, Warden,
Respondent.
ORDER
After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, to which no objections have been filed. Accordingly,
the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion
and DISMISSES the petition, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Further, a prisoner seeking relief under § 2254 must obtain a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) before appealing the denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. This Court
“must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
applicant.” Rule 11(a) to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. This Court should
grant a COA only if the prisoner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation,
and in consideration of the standards enunciated in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 482-84
(2000), Petitioner has failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
a COA in this case.! Moreover, because there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal,
an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and Petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma
pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Upon the foregoing, the Court CLOSES this civil action.
SO ORDERED this Ss aay of January 2026, at Augusta, Georgia.
HONORABLE J. RANDAL HALL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
□ □□□ the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate
from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22.” Rule 11(a) to the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Proceedings.
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.