Walker v. Vannoy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA AQUENDIUS WALKER CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 20-2661 DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN SECTION “D” (2) ORDER The Court, having considered de novo the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ,1 the State’s Response,2 the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge,3 and the failure of Petitioner’s to object to the Report and Recommendation,4 approves the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and adopts it as its opinion in this matter. Additionally, Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceedings provides that, “The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A court may only issue a certificate of appealability if the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”5 The “controlling standard” for a certificate of appealability requires the petitioner to show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for 1 R. Doc. 1. 2 R. Doc. 10. 3 R. Doc. 11. 4 Plaintiff had fourteen days in which to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. See R. Doc. 22; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Objections were therefore due on or before June 4, 2021. Because of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court waited an additional week past the June 4, 2021 deadline before adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 4 See Coleman v. United States, 912 F.3d 824, 828 (5th Cir. 2019). — 5 — 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2). that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented [are] adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. “Any doubt regarding whether to grant a COA is resolved in favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be considered in making this determination.”’ After reviewing the record, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial ofa constitutional right. The Court, therefore, denies Petitioner acertificate of appealability. IT IS ORDERED that Aquendius Walker’s Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court DENIES Petitioner a certificate of appealability. New Orleans, Louisiana, June 14, 2021. ‘othe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S, 322, 336 (2008) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Cie 000 114 F.3d 491, 495 (th Cir. 1997); Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th