Pierce v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 65

ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1) Mr. Pierce's 63 objections are OVERRULED; 2) The 50 Recommendation is ADOPTED; 3) This action is DISMISSED with prejudice; Final judgment will be entered separately; A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/3/2021. (amf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
DAMIEN MICHAEL PIERCE,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-989-WKW

ORDER
The Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to which Petitioner Damien
Michael Pierce timely objected. (Doc. # 50.) Based upon a de novo review of those
portions of the Recommendation to which Petitioner objects, see 28 U.S.C. § 636,
the objections lack merit. The objections mirror the arguments Mr. Pierce previously
made to the Magistrate Judge, and the Recommendation adequately addresses and
properly rejects the underpinnings of Mr. Pierce’s objections without need for
further elaboration. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1)

Mr. Pierce’s objections (Doc. # 63) are OVERRULED;

(2)

The Recommendation (Doc. # 50) is ADOPTED;

(3)

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Final judgment will be entered separately.

A certificate of appealability will not be issued. For a petitioner to obtain a
certificate of appealability, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

This showing requires that

“reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And, where a
petition is denied on procedural grounds, he “must show not only that one or more
of the claims he has raised presents a substantial constitutional issue, but also that
there is a substantial issue about the correctness of the procedural ground on which
the petition was denied.” Gordon v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 479 F.3d 1299, 1300
(11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). “A ‘substantial question’ about the procedural
ruling means that the correctness of it under the law as it now stands is debatable
among jurists of reason.” Id.
Because reasonable jurists would not find the denial of Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion debatable, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
DONE this 3rd day of June, 2021.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2