From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Adams v. Walker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
May 1, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:08-CV-123 (CAR) (M.D. Ga. May. 1, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:08-CV-123 (CAR)

05-01-2012

ALLEN ALPHONZO ADAMS, Petitioner v. VICTOR L. WALKER, Warden, Respondent


ORDER

Petitioner ALLEN ALPHONZO ADAMS has filed a notice of appeal (ECF No. 79). It appears that on March 23, 2009, the Court adopted the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation and dismissed Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 56). Since that time, Petitioner has filed ten motions in this Court. (ECF No. 58, 59, 60, 62, 65, 67, 68, 73, 76, and 78). All have been denied. (ECF No. 61, 64, 72).

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has mandated that the Court construe Petitioner's notice of appeal as an application for a certificate of appealability ("COA") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Edwards v. United States, 114 F.3d 1083 (11th Cir. 1997). Under § 2253(c), a COA may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. For the reasons stated in the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation and this Court's Order adopting the same, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Accordingly, the application for a COA is DENIED.

____________

C. ASHLEY ROYAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
lnb


Summaries of

Adams v. Walker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
May 1, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:08-CV-123 (CAR) (M.D. Ga. May. 1, 2012)
Case details for

Adams v. Walker

Case Details

Full title:ALLEN ALPHONZO ADAMS, Petitioner v. VICTOR L. WALKER, Warden, Respondent

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

Date published: May 1, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:08-CV-123 (CAR) (M.D. Ga. May. 1, 2012)

Citing Cases

Adams v. Bryson

Second, the Court is precluded from considering the merits of any claims regarding the Petitioner's 1992…