Bunch v. Billups, et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 9/12/2017. (KEK)

FILED
2017 Sep-12 AM 09:30
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL ANTHONY BUNCH,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN BILLUPS, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:14-cv-01834-MHH-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 14, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he
recommended that the Court dismiss with prejudice petitioner Michael Anthony
Bunch’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 15, p. 20). The magistrate judge
advised the parties of their right to file specific written objections to the report and
recommendation within 14 days. (Doc. 15, pp. 20-21). To date, no party has filed
objections to the report and recommendation.
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). A
district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain
error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d

776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749
(11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).1
Having reviewed the habeas petition (Doc. 1), the amended petition (Doc.
6), and the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Doc. 15), the Court
finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate
judge’s description of the relevant state court proceedings. Therefore, the Court
adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation that the Court
dismiss Mr. Bunch’s habeas petition.
The Court has reviewed Mr. Bunch’s petition to determine whether the
Court should issue a certificate of appealability. 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 issues presented were adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

1

When a party objects to a report in which a magistrate judge recommends dismissal of
the action, a district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §§
636(b)(1)(B)-(C).
2

(2003) (internal quotations omitted). This Court finds that Mr. Bunch’s claims do
not satisfy either standard.
The Court will enter a separate final order consistent with this memorandum
opinion.
DONE and ORDERED this September 12, 2017.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3