Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-1_15-cv-00311/USCOURTS-alnd-1_15-cv-00311-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tavaris Lamon Body
Petitioner
W.T. Taylor
Respondent

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

TAVARIS LAMON BODY, )

)

Petitioner )

)

vs. ) Case No. 1:15-cv-00311-AKK-HGD

)

W.T. TAYLOR, Warden, )

)

Respondent )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 3, 2015, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was

entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file

objectionsto the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. After obtaining an

extension of time, petitioner timely filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation on April 14, 2015. 

After careful consideration of the record in this case, the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation and petitioner’s objections thereto, the court hereby

ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge. The court further ACCEPTS the

recommendations of the magistrate judge that the petition for writ of habeas corpus

be denied. 

Page 1 of 3

FILED

 2015 Apr-27 AM 11:40

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:15-cv-00311-AKK-HGD Document 7 Filed 04/27/15 Page 1 of 3
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases,

1

the Court has

evaluated the claims within the petition for suitability for the issuance of a certificate

of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 

Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an

appeal is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment “shall”

either issue a COA or state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner “has

made a substantialshowing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Thisshowing can

be established by demonstrating 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 were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S.

880, 893 n.4 (1983)). For procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable

jurists could debate whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

constitutional right and whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct. Id. 

The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate its resolution of the

claims presented in this habeas corpus petition. For the reasons stated in the

1 The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases are also applicable to cases filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:15-cv-00311-AKK-HGD Document 7 Filed 04/27/15 Page 2 of 3
magistrate judge’sreport and recommendation, the Court DECLINES to issue a COA

with respect to any claims. 

A separate order in conformitywith this MemorandumOpinion will be entered

contemporaneously herewith.

DONE this 27

th

 day of April, 2015.

________________________________

 ABDUL K. KALLON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:15-cv-00311-AKK-HGD Document 7 Filed 04/27/15 Page 3 of 3