Tilghman v. Chapman et al

Filing 31

Order adopting 24 Report and Recommendations; denying 5 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 8 Motion to Dismiss; granting 9 Motion to Dismiss; denying 11 Motion to Vacate; denying 13 Motion to Deny Respondents' Motions to Dismiss; deny ing 15 Amended Motion to Dismiss; denying 17 Motion to Vacate; denying as moot 19 Motion for an Order granting Petitioner's Rule (15) Motion to Amend; denying as moot 20 Motion for an Order directing Respondent to Answer Petitioner' s Amended Writ; denying 23 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying a COA in this case; dismissing Respondents Olens and Morelli in this case; dismissing the petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254; and directing that a final judgment be entered in favor of Respondent Chatman. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 04/13/2012. (thb) Modified on 4/13/2012 (thb).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
ARCHIE TILGHMAN,
Petitioner,
V.

BRUCE CHATMAN, Warden, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)

CV 111-108

)
)
)
)
ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed (doc. nos. 26,
27).1 Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED
as the opinion of the Court. Therefore, Respondents' motions to dismiss are GRANTED
(doc. nos. 8, 9); Petitioner's "Motion[s] to Deny Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. . . ,"
motion to amend, "Motion[s] to Vacate the Lower Trial Court Judgment," and "Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdictional Venue. . ." are DENIED (doc. nos. 5, 11, 13, 15, 17,23);
and Petitioner's motions requesting a ruling on his motion to amend are DENIED AS
MOOT (doc. nos. 19, 20).
Furthermore, a prisoner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must obtain a

'The Court notes that Petitioner set forth his objections in two documents that were
timely filed (doc. nos. 26,27), and he later submitted copies of these documents, which were
filed as separate entries on the docket (doc. nos. 28, 29).

certificate of appealability ("COX) before appealing the denial of his application for a writ
of habeas corpus. This Court "must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters
a final order adverse to the applicant." Rule 11(a) to the Rules Governing Section 2254
Proceedings. This Court should grant a COA only if the prisoner makes a "substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). For the reasons set
forth in the Report and Recommendation, and in consideration of the standards enunciated
in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 482-84 (2000), Petitioner has failed to make the
requisite showing. Accordingly, a COA is DENIED in this case.2 Moreover, because there
are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3).
Upon the foregoing, Respondents Olens and Morelli are DISMISSED from this case,
the instant petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED, and a final
judgment shall be ENTERED in favor of Respondent Chatman.
SO ORDERED this jeday of April,fll2, at

BLE J. RANDAL HALL
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

"'If the court denies a certificate, [a party] may not appeal the denial but may seek a
certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22." Rule
11(a) to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings.
2