Grider v. Alabama, State of

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 2/17/2015. (KAM, )

FILED
2015 Feb-17 PM 04:38
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THOMAS J. GRIDER,
Petitioner,
v.

THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:14-cv-2134-LSC-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. It was
filed by Thomas J. Grider, an Alabama state prisoner acting pro se. (Doc. 1). Grider has also
filed a motion to expand the record, requesting that the State be required to furnish certain
portions of the record from his underlying state-court criminal proceeding. (Doc. 8). On January
26, 2015, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1), recommending that Grider’s habeas application be denied on the ground that it is
barred under statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and that his motion to expand the
record likewise be denied. (Doc. 9). Grider was given 14 days in which to file an objection to
the R&R. During that objection period Grider twice filed the same letter addressed to the
undersigned district judge. (See Docs. 10, 11). However, that correspondence is more aptly
characterized as a general plea for fair consideration of his case than an effort to raise any
particular objection to the R&R. Then, on February 9, 2015, Grider placed in the prison mailbox
for mailing an additional objection, which was docketed by this Court on February 12, 2015.

(Doc. 12.) The objection period has now expired.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file,
including the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Doc. 9) and the Petitioner’s
submissions in response thereto, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s findings
are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. Petitioner’s
objections, such as they are, are OVERRULED. As a result, the petition for writ of habeas
corpus (Doc. 1) and petitioner’s motion to expand the record (Doc. 8) are both due to be
DENIED and this action is due to DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Furthermore, 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
Judgment will be entered.
Done this 17th day of February 2015.

L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
[160704]

2