Thurmond v. Hobbs

Filing 21

ORDER approving and adopting in their entirety in all respects 17 proposed findings and recommendations; denying 20 motion to appoint counsel; and denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 12/24/2014. (ljb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION SAM EDWARD THURMOND, SR. v. PETITIONER CASE NO. 5:14CV00296 BSM RAY HOBBS, Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT ORDER The proposed findings and recommendations from Magistrate Judge H. David Young have been received, along with the objections thereto. After careful review of the findings and recommendations, the objections, and a de novo review of the record, it is concluded that the findings and recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety in all respects. Additionally, petitioner Sam Edward Thurmond, Sr.’s motion to appoint counsel [Doc. No. 20] is denied because the issues are neither factually nor legally complex, and he appears to be able to adequately present his claims. See Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2554 Cases in the United States District Court, the court must determine whether to issue a certificate of appealability in the final order. In § 2254 cases, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). As there is no issue on which petitioner has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, the certificate of appealability is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of December 2014. ________________________________ 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?