From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ash v. McNeil

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
Sep 13, 2011
CASE NO. 4:08cv215-RH/GRJ (N.D. Fla. Sep. 13, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO. 4:08cv215-RH/GRJ

09-13-2011

HORACE ASH, Petitioner, v. WALTER McNEIL, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING PETITION

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before the court on the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, ECF No. 41. No objections have been filed. The report and recommendation is correct and is adopted as the court's opinion.

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires a district court to "issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant." A certificate of appealability may be issued only if a petitioner "has made 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, 335-38, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003) (explaining the meaning of this term); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000) (same); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4, 103 S. Ct. 3383, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1090 (1983); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000) (setting out the standards applicable to a § 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said in Slack:

To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were "'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'"
Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84, quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4. Further, in order to obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural grounds, a petitioner must show, "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." Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.

The petitioner has not made the required showing.

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED.

2. The clerk must enter judgment stating, "The petition is DENIED with prejudice."

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The clerk must close the file.

Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Ash v. McNeil

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
Sep 13, 2011
CASE NO. 4:08cv215-RH/GRJ (N.D. Fla. Sep. 13, 2011)
Case details for

Ash v. McNeil

Case Details

Full title:HORACE ASH, Petitioner, v. WALTER McNEIL, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

Date published: Sep 13, 2011

Citations

CASE NO. 4:08cv215-RH/GRJ (N.D. Fla. Sep. 13, 2011)