Boglin v. Jones et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING -re: R&R 18 . The Magistrate Judge's findings are due to be and hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. Objections 23 are OVERRULED. COA is DENIED. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 2/10/2014. (AVC)

FILED
2014 Feb-10 PM 04:21
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
VINCENT EARL BOGLIN,
Petitioner,
v.
KENNETH JONES; and the
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:11-cv-3862-RDP-PWG

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on December 27, 2013 (Doc. #
11), recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
by Petitioner, Vincent Earl Boglin (“Boglin”), be denied.

After the Magistrate Judge granted

Boglin’s motion for extension of time to respond, Boglin filed objections (Doc. # 23) dated January
28, 2014.1 The court will treat such filing as an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation or, in the alternative, as a motion.
Boglin’s objections consist of restatements of the arguments he has already presented. These
arguments were considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge, and Boglin’s objections add
nothing new to the equation. Accordingly, these objections are due to be overruled. Additionally,
in accordance with Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must issue or
deny a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability may only issue if the applicant has

1

The order granting the extension required Boglin to file his objections by January 30, 2014. The Clerk
received Boglin’s objections on February 7, 2014. Under the so-called “prison mailbox rule,” the court will treat these
objections as timely-filed. Just prior to the Clerk’s receipt of Boglin’s objections, the undersigned entered: (1) a
memorandum opinion (Doc. # 21) adopting and accepting the Report and Recommendation; and (2) a final order denying
the Petition (Doc. # 22). Upon receipt of the objections, he court withdrew those entries by margin order.

made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). For
the reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, Boglin has not met this standard.
Accordingly, the certificate of appealability is hereby DENIED. Boglin is advised that he may seek
a certificate of appealability directly from the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the file, 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. To the extent that the Boglin’s filing (Doc. # 23), is construed
as interposing objections to the Report and Recommendation, such objections are hereby
OVERRULED. To the extent that Boglin’s filing (Doc. #23) is construed as a motion, it is hereby
DENIED. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be denied. A Final Judgment
will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this

10th

day of February, 2014.

___________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2