King v. Jones et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 3/17/2017. (KEK)

FILED
2017 Mar-17 AM 09:54
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
EDWARD LAVAR KING,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN KENNETH JONES and THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case Number: 4:14-cv-01349-MHH-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 22, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation
in which he recommended that the Court dismiss with prejudice petitioner Edward Lavar
King’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 21). The magistrate judge advised the
parties of their right to file specific written objections within 14 days. (Doc. 21, p. 23).
On March 6, 2017, Mr. King filed objections. (Doc. 23).

1

A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

When a

party objects to a report and recommendation, the district court must “make a de novo

1

Attached to his objections, Mr. King filed a “Motion to show that the Alabama Court of
Criminal Appeals adjudication of the claims result in a decision that is contrary to, involved
unreasonable application of clearly established Federal Law as determined by the Supreme
Court.” (Doc. 23 at 7-25). Mr. King’s motion appears to restate the arguments contained in his
petition rather than point to errors by the magistrate judge. To the extent the motion requests
relief from the Court separate from the habeas petition, the Court denies the motion. To the
extent that the motion is duplicative of the habeas petition, the Court denies the motion as moot.
1

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. The Court reviews for plain error
proposed factual findings to which no objection is made, and the Court reviews
propositions of law de novo. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993);
see also United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), cert.
denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984) (“The failure to object to the magistrate’s findings of fact
prohibits an attack on appeal of the factual findings adopted by the district court except
on grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.”) (internal citation omitted); Macort v.
Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Mr. King’s objections are largely a restatement of the arguments that he presented
in support of his habeas petition.

The magistrate judge addressed each of those

arguments completely in his report and recommendation, and the Court finds no error in
the magistrate judge’s analysis of the record or the law. Therefore, the Court overrules
Mr. King’s objections, and the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his
recommendation.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court has evaluated
the claims within Mr. King’s petition for suitability for the issuance of a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The Court may issue a certificate of appealability
“only if the applicant has a 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
2

issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El
v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). The Court finds that
Mr. King’s claims do not satisfy either standard. If he wishes to pursue an appeal, Mr.
King must seek a certificate of appealability from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rules Governing §
2254 Cases, Rule 11(a); 11th Cir. R. 22.
The Court grants Mr. King’s motion to suspend copies with respect to documents
that he files in district court. (Doc. 24). Counsel for the defendant shall receive copies of
those documents via CM/ECF, the district court’s electronic docketing system.
The Court will enter a separate final judgment consistent with this memorandum
opinion.
DONE and ORDERED this March 17, 2017.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3