Hoard v. Vance

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 9 Report and Recommendations, it is ordered that the petition is dismissed. Accordingly, a COA shall not issue in this case. A separate judgment will be entered. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 1/11/2022 (cwl)

Case 3:21-cv-00363-TSL-MTP Document 10 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
DERRICK DOREAZ HOARD
VS.

PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21CV363TSL-MTP

LEE D. VANCE

RESPONDENT
ORDER

This cause is before the court on the report and
recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker entered on
December 9, 2021, recommending that Hoard’s § 2241 petition be
dismissed.
Petitioner Derrick Doreaz Hoard has failed to respond and
the time for doing so has expired.

Having reviewed the report

and recommendation, the court concludes that the report and
recommendation is well taken and hereby adopts, as its own
opinion, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Therefore, it is ordered that the report and recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker entered on
December 9, 2021, be, and the same is hereby, adopted as the
finding of this court.
petition is dismissed.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the

Case 3:21-cv-00363-TSL-MTP Document 10 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 2

Further, to obtain a certificate of appealability (COA),
Hoard must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).

He may satisfy “this

standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree
with the district court's resolution of his constitutional
claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”
El, 537 U.S. at 327.

Miller-

When the court denies relief on procedural

grounds, “a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least,
that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether
the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
this standard.

Slack

Hoard has not satisfied

Accordingly, a COA shall not issue in this case.

A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Rule
58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2022.

_/s/ Tom S. Lee____________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE