Means v. Adduci et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the 11 Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 7/27/2016. (JLC)
2016 Jul-27 AM 11:35
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SCHEAREAN JEAN MEANS,
A. WASHINGTON ADDUCI, et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01316-VEH-HGD
On July 5, 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.
No party has filed objections to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
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
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, 1 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. For the reasons stated in the magistrate
The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases are applicable to habeas corpus petitions pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
Page 2 of 3
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
DONE this 27th day of July, 2016.
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
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?