Sims v. Price et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 12/27/2016. (KAM, )

FILED
2016 Dec-27 PM 03:41
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BOBBY SIMS,
Petitioner,
v.
CHERYL PRICE, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action Number:
2:15-cv-00637-AKK-HGD

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On December 6, 2016, 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. Doc. 13. On
December 19, 2016, petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. Doc. 14.
After careful consideration of the record in this case, including the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and the petitioner’s objections
thereto, 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.
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 (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.
2

A separate order in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion will be
entered contemporaneously herewith.
DONE the 27th day of December, 2016.

_________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3