Jackson v. Estes et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 8/28/2015. (PSM)

FILED
2015 Aug-28 AM 09:45
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RODERICK E. JACKSON,
Petitioner
vs.
WARDEN DEWAYNE ESTES and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondents

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-01767-LSC-HGD

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On August 5, 2015, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was
entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file
objections to the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. No objections to
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation have been filed by petitioner or
respondents.
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 petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied.
Page 1 of 3

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 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04, 146 L.Ed.2d 542
(2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394-95
& n.4, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (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.

Page 2 of 3

For the reasons stated in the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Court DECLINES to issue a COA
with respect to any claims.
A separate order in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered
contemporaneously herewith.
Done this 28th day of August 2015.

L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
[160704]

Page 3 of 3