Samuels v. Crickmar

Filing 25

ORDER denying 24 Motion for Out of Time Appeal. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 02/23/2015. (thb)

IN THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT

COURT

FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

TAVARIS

SAMUELS

*
*

Petitioner,

*
*

V.

*

l:13-CV-084

*

SCOTT CRICKMAR,

*
*

Respondent

*

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Tavaris Samuels'
Motion for Out of Time Appeal.

(Doc. 24.)

Petitioner seeks to

appeal the denial of his habeas corpus petition brought pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 and/or this Court's simultaneous denial of a

certificate of appealability ("COA").

In its September 10, 2014

Order, the Court agreed with the Magistrate Judge that there was
no basis for federal habeas relief on the ten grounds asserted

by Petitioner.

(Doc. 20; Doc. 17 at 4-5, 11-29.)

19, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant motion,
"he

did

not

know

to

file

his

Appeal

from

On February

explaining that
the

[9-10-14]

Dismissal" because his "Legal Materials and Documents did not
transfer with him" to a different correctional facility.

24,

H 2.)

(Doc.

He further requests that this Court "allow him to

file a proper "C.O.A.' Motion."
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

(IcL H 4.)

§ 2253(c)(1),

an appeal may not be

taken from a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless

the

Court

issues

Petitioner

makes

a

COA.

"a

This

certificate

substantial

constitutional right."

showing

may

of

issue

the

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

denial

the

requisite

showing.

(See Doc.

February,

ENTERED

at

Augusta,

of

a

which was

Petitioner has not made

20.)

The

Court

DENIES Petitioner's Motion for Out of Time Appeal.1
ORDER

if

As demonstrated

by the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation,

adopted as the opinion of this Court,

only

Georgia,

this

therefore

(Doc. 24.)

«g<0—

day

of

2015.

HONQEStBLE J / RANDAL HALL
UNITJ2D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
?HERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

1

The

Court

also

notes

that

Petitioner

submits

several

additional

paragraphs with citations to the record and case law "for purposes of showing
'Case Merit.'"
(Doc. 24, M 5-9.)
To the extent Petitioner seeks
reconsideration of the Court's September 10, 2014 Order denying his § 2254

petition, the Court has considered the arguments presented in Paragraphs 5
through 9 but finds they offer nothing to persuade the Court that its
decision was in error.
2