Hanley v. Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 9/20/2016. (KEK)

FILED
2016 Sep-20 PM 01:01
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
HENRY BUTLER HANLEY, II,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE )
STATE OF ALABAMA,
)
)
Respondent.
)

Case Number: 7:13-cv 00838-MHH-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 26, 2016, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he
recommended that Court deny Mr. Hanly’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and
dismiss the petition with prejudice. (Doc. 11). The magistrate judge advised Mr.
Hanly that he had the right to file objections to the report and recommendations
within fourteen days. (Doc. 11, p. 12). The Court received Mr. Hanly’s objections
on April 28, 2016, but Mr. Hanly signed the objections on March 8, 2016. (Doc.
12, p. 6). The Court has considered the merits of Mr. Hanly’s opposition to the
report and recommendation.1
When a party objects to a report and recommendation, the 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. §
1

Mr. Hanly filed a notice in which he asserted that he mailed his objections within the 14
day objection period. (Doc. 13). The Court has assumed that Mr. Hanly filed his objections on
time.

636(b)(1)(B)-(C). The Court reviews de novo legal conclusions in a report and
reviews for clear 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). 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).
The Court has considered the record in this case, paying special attention to
the report and recommendation and Mr. Hanly’s opposition to that report. The
Court overrules Mr. Hanly’s objections. The Court finds no errors of law in the
report, and the Court finds no factual errors either.
Therefore, the Court accepts the report and agrees with the magistrate
judge’s recommendation that the Court should dismiss the habeas corpus petition.
The Court will enter a separate final order.
This 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
2

“the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). Mr.
Hanly’s claims do not satisfy either standard.
The Court advises Mr. Hanly that under Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 22(b), he may seek a certificate of appealability from the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1) (“If the district judge has
denied the certificate, the applicant may request a circuit judge to issue it.”); see
also Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2) (“A request addressed to the court of appeals may be
considered by a circuit judge or judges, as the court prescribes. If no express
request for a certificate is filed, the notice of appeal constitutes a request addressed
to the judges of the court of appeals.”).
DONE and ORDERED this September 20, 2016.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3