Miller v. Price et al, No. 2:2013cv00574 - Document 30 (N.D. Ala. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION that the magistrate judge's findings are due to be adopted and his recommendation is due to be accepted and a certificate of appealability is due to denied as more fully set out thereon. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 11/26/2018. (AHI )

Download PDF
Miller v. Price et al Doc. 30 FILED 2018 Nov-26 AM 09:36 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ARCHIE DARRIN MILLER, Petitioner, v. CHERYL PRICE, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) Case No: 2:13-cvB0574-CLS-JEO ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Archie Darrin Miller, a pro se Alabama state prisoner incarcerated at the Donaldson Correctional Facility in Bessemer, Alabama.1 Miller challenges his convictions and sentences in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, on multiple sex offenses against his minor daughters. The magistrate judge to whom the case was referred entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the petition be denied.2 Petitioner objected to the Report and Recommendation by filing an affidavit,3 an objection, and other evidence, including transcript excerpts.4 1 Doc. no. 1. 2 Doc. no. 23 (Report and Recommendation). 3 Doc . no. 28 (Affidavit). 4 Doc. no. 29 (Objections), and attachments. Dockets.Justia.com Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and petitioner’s objections thereto, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s findings are due to be, and they hereby are, ADOPTED, and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED. Petitioner’s objections, albeit lengthy, merely rehash arguments raised in his habeas petition and in the reply he filed in response to the State’s answer. As a result, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be denied, and this action will be dismissed with 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 this 26th day of November, 2018. ______________________________ United States District Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.