Thomas v. Sconyers et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 5/20/15. (SAC )
2015 May-20 PM 03:59
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
KENNETH SCONYERS, Warden,
and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
Case No. 2:13-cv-01427-KOB-HGD
The magistrate judge entered his report and recommendation on March 12,
2015, recommending that the court deny the petitioner’s habeas petition because the
issues raised in it are procedurally barred, or in the alternative, without merit.
Although the petitioner received an extension of time, to May 1, 2015, in which to
file any objections, no party has filed any objections.
After careful de novo review of the entire record in this case, including the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the report
of the magistrate judge and ACCEPTS his recommendation that the court deny the
petition for writ of habeas corpus as procedurally defaulted, or in the alternative,
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 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 a
petitioner appeals, 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.” The petitioner can
establish this showing 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
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court DECLINES to issue a COA
with respect to any claims.
Page 2 of 3
The court will enter a separate Order in conformity with this Memorandum
DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of May, 2015.
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?