Lynch v. Hall, Jr. et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 12 Report and Recommendations and DENYING Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition. In addition, Petitioner is not entitled to a Certificate of Appealability, rendering moot any request for in forma pauperis status on appeal. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 7/28/17. (jlm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

^

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

/Si HQ: 59

SAVANNAH DIVISION

REGINALD LYNCH,

Petitioner,
CASE NO. CV4I6-079

V.

HILTON HALL, JR. and GREGORY C.
DOZIER,

Respondents.

ORDER

Before

the

Court

is

the

Magistrate

Judge's

Report

and

Recommendation (Doc. 12), to which objections have been filed
(Doc. 13). After a careful de novo review of the record, the
Court concludes that Petitioner's objections are without merit.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the

Court's

opinion

in this case. As

a

result.

Petitioner's

28

U.S.C. § 2254 Petition is DENIED. In addition. Petitioner is not

entitled to a Certificate of Appealability, rendering moot any

request for in forma pauperis status on appeal. The Clerk of
Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

In his objections. Petitioner continues to argue that the
state habeas court's decision was an unreasonable application of

clearly

established

federal

law

and

an

unreasonable

determination of the facts. (Doc. 13 at 1.) This Court, however,

agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the victim's statements

were

as

non-testimonial because "the circumstances of the encounter

well as the statements and

police

objectively

interrogation'

indicate

was

^to

actions of [the

that

enable

the

victim] and the

^primary

police

purpose

assistance

ongoing emergency.' " Michigan v. Bryant^

to

of

the

meet

an

562 U.S. 344, 377-78

(2011) (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822 (2006)).

The responding officer arrived on scene to find one individual
suffering from a

mortal gunshot

shooter

who

then

officer

only

was

asked

shooter for later

in

the

an

wound

unknown

victim

prosecution.

his

inflicted

by an

location.

Moreover,

the

identify

the

name,

Petitioner

not

to

seems to

unknown

argue

that

Bryant is inapplicable because the responding officers in this
case failed to take steps consistent with an ongoing emergency.
(Doc. 12 at 8; Doc. 13 at 3.) However, the officer's belief as

to the exigency of the situation is a subjective inquiry, not an
objective

analysis.

Magistrate
neither

an

Judge

In

that

any event,
the

unreasonable

state

this

Court

habeas

application

of

agrees

court's
clearly

with

the

decision

was

established

federal law nor an unreasonable determination of the facts.

SO ORDERED this

day of July 2017.

WILLIAM T. MOORE,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA