Clark v. Jones et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 8/10/2018. (PSM)
2018 Aug-10 PM 03:44
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
RICHARD MORRIS CLARK,
CARLA JONES, et al.,
Case No.: 2:15-cv-01515-LSC-JHE
The magistrate judge filed a report on June 28, 2018, recommending that the petition for
writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 20). The magistrate judge advised the
parties of their right to file specific written objections within fourteen days. (Id.). On July 18,
2018, the petitioner moved for leave to amend the petition. (Doc. 21). On July 26, 2018, the
petitioner filed objections to the report and recommendation, attaching another copy of his
motion for leave to amend and stating that he “rest[s] on the attached motion for leave to amend”
as his objections. (Doc. 23). The petitioner also requests an extension of time to address the
report and recommendation. (Id. at 1). Finally, on August 1, 2018, the petitioner filed an
additional set of objections to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 24).
All of the petitioner’s responses to the report and recommendation, whether or not styled
as “objections,” were filed after the deadline for the petitioner to object to the report and
recommendation. Further, the petitioner’s request for an extension of time to respond to the
report and recommendation comes two weeks after the petitioner’s response deadline, and the
petitioner offers neither a basis for why he should be granted additional time nor a reason for the
untimeliness of his request. Therefore, the petitioner’s request for additional time is DENIED,
and to the extent the petitioner’s responses present objections to the report and recommendation,
they are OVERRULED as untimely.
Further, to the extent each of these documents can be construed as objections, they are
meritless. The petitioner’s current motion for leave to amend, (doc. 21), which does not address
the report and recommendation at all and instead simply repeats the claims asserted in the
original petition, is substantially similar to the motion he filed on March 7, 2018, (doc. 19). The
magistrate judge correctly determined that the motion for leave to amend was repetitive of the
original petition and denied the petitioner leave to amend. (Doc. 20 at 5). The petitioner’s
second set of objections are a rehash of the petitioner’s motion for leave to amend; the only
purported error by the magistrate judge that the petitioner raises is that the magistrate judge
denied the motion for leave to amend. (See doc. 24 at 5). As stated above, the magistrate judge
did not err when he denied that motion. Therefore, the petitioner’s motion for leave to amend,
(doc. 21), is DENIED, and petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED.
The court has considered the entire file in this action, together with the report and
recommendation, and has reached an independent conclusion that the report and
recommendation is due to be adopted and approved. Accordingly, the court hereby adopts and
approves the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge as the findings and
conclusions of this court. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be dismissed. A
separate order will be entered.
The court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make
such a showing, a “petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000), or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted).
This court finds petitioner’s claims do not satisfy either standard.
DONE and ORDERED on August 10, 2018.
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
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?