Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-3_19-cv-02103/USCOURTS-alnd-3_19-cv-02103-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHWESTERN DIVISION

TERRELL ROLAND,

Petitioner,

v.

TONEY, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 3:19-cv-02103-ACA-HNJ

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an action for a writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner Terrell Roland, 

pro se, on or about December 26, 2019. (Docs. 1, 5). Mr. Roland challenges his 

2008 convictions for murder and second degree assault in the Circuit Court of 

Colbert County, Alabama. (Id.). On May 11, 2020, the magistrate judge to whom 

the case was referred entered a report and recommendation pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that habeas relief be denied. (Doc. 15). The 

magistrate judge notified Mr. Roland of his right to file objections to the report and 

recommendation within fourteen (14) days. (Id.). 

Rather than file objections, Mr. Roland re-dated and re-filed his response to 

respondents’ answer, which the Clerk docketed as objections. (Doc. 16). Even so 

construed, nothing in the petitioner’s response provides a basis to toll the statutory 

FILED

 2020 Jun-17 AM 08:43

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 3:19-cv-02103-ACA-HNJ Document 17 Filed 06/17/20 Page 1 of 2
2

time limitations for filing a habeas petition. Thus, the petition is due to be dismissed 

as time-barred.

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the 

court file, including the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the court 

is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s findings are due to be and are hereby 

ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the petition for 

writ of habeas corpus is due to be DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. 

Further, because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among 

jurists of reason, a certificate of appealability is also due to be DENIED. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rule 11(a), Rules 

Governing § 2254 Proceedings. A separate Final Order will be entered.

DONE and ORDERED this June 17, 2020.

 _________________________________

 ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-02103-ACA-HNJ Document 17 Filed 06/17/20 Page 2 of 2