Bryant v. Clay

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 10/17/2017. (PSM)

FILED
2017 Oct-17 PM 03:25
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
TYRONE O. BRYANT,
Petitioner
vs.
WARDEN CLAY,
Respondent

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-01750-LSC-HNJ

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 15, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a report and
recommendation and allowed the parties therein fourteen (14) days in which to file
objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations. No party has filed objections
to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the report of the magistrate
judge. The court further ACCEPTS the recommendations of the magistrate judge
that the court deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

1

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 1 the Court has
evaluated the claims within the petition for suitability for the issuance of a certificate
of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an
appeal is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment “shall”
either issue a COA or state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner “has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” This showing
can be established by demonstrating 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 were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463
U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)).

For procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if

reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
of a constitutional right and whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct. Id.
The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate its resolution of the
claims presented in this habeas corpus petition.

For the reasons stated in the

The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases also apply to cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rule 1(b),
Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
2

1

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Court DECLINES to issue a
COA with respect to any claims.
The Court will enter a separate order in conformity with this Memorandum
Opinion.
DONE and ORDERED on October 17, 2017.

_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
160704

3