Miller v. Price et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM OPINION that the magistrate judge's findings are due to be adopted and his recommendation is due to be accepted and a certificate of appealability is due to denied as more fully set out thereon. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 11/26/2018. (AHI )

FILED
2018 Nov-26 AM 09:36
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ARCHIE DARRIN MILLER,
Petitioner,
v.
CHERYL PRICE, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
) Case No: 2:13-cvB0574-CLS-JEO
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 by Archie Darrin Miller, a pro se Alabama state prisoner incarcerated
at the Donaldson Correctional Facility in Bessemer, Alabama.1 Miller challenges his
convictions and sentences in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, on
multiple sex offenses against his minor daughters. The magistrate judge to whom the
case was referred entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the
petition be denied.2 Petitioner objected to the Report and Recommendation by filing
an affidavit,3 an objection, and other evidence, including transcript excerpts.4

1

Doc. no. 1.

2

Doc. no. 23 (Report and Recommendation).

3

Doc . no. 28 (Affidavit).

4

Doc. no. 29 (Objections), and attachments.

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, including the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and petitioner’s
objections thereto, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s findings are
due to be, and they hereby are, ADOPTED, and his recommendation is ACCEPTED.
Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED. Petitioner’s objections, albeit lengthy,
merely rehash arguments raised in his habeas petition and in the reply he filed in
response to the State’s answer. As a result, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is
due to be denied, and this action will be dismissed with prejudice.
Further, because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among
jurists of reason, a certificate of appealability is also due to be denied. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rule 11(a), Rules
Governing § 2254 Proceedings.
A separate Final Order will be entered.
DONE this 26th day of November, 2018.

______________________________
United States District Judge