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)
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?