Opinion
Civil Action 21-2050-KSM
02-28-2024
BARRETT S. TUNSIL, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT THOMAS MCGINLEY, et al. Respondents.
ORDER
KAREN SPENCER MARSTON, J.
AND NOW this 28th day of February, 2024, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Richard A. Lloret (the “R&R”) (Doc. No. 115), Petitioner's Objections to the R&R (Doc. No. 122), and Petitioner's Supplemental Objections (Doc. No. 124), it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.
4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.
Because jurists of reason would not debate the procedural or substantive dispositions of Petitioner's claims, no certificate of appealability should be granted. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.... When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, 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.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.