UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA JASPER DIVISION

WILLIAM KINDRED RIDDLE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 6:20-cv-01727-ACA-JHE ) LEON BOLLING, Warden, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner William Kindred Riddle filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

, challenging his conviction and resulting sixteen-year sentence for sexual abuse of a child under twelve. (Doc. 1). On May 7, 2021, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation pursuant to

(b), recommending that habeas relief be denied. (Doc. 7). Mr. Riddle filed timely objections to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 8). The magistrate judge found Mr. Riddle’s petition was due to be dismissed on three alternative grounds: (1) as time-barred; (2) as unexhausted and procedurally defaulted; and (3) on the merits. (See Doc. 7 at 4, 9, 13). Mr. Riddle’s objections address only the first and third of these. Specifically, he challenges: (1) the wording of the indictment; (2) the failure to introduce evidence concerning the victim’s diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Adderall usage; and (3) whether sufficient evidence supported his conviction. (See doc. 8). Mr. Riddle adds that prison lockdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic and abandonment by

his attorney should excuse the untimely filing of his petition and that he has new evidence proving his innocence. (Id. at 6–8). After carefully reviewing and considering de novo all the materials in the court

file, including the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and Mr. Riddle’s objections, the court OVERRULES Mr. Riddle’s objections, ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report, and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Accordingly, the court WILL DENY Mr. Riddle’s § 2254 petition.

This court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has a made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a “petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000), or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,” Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003) (internal quotations omitted). This

court finds Mr. Riddle’s claims do not satisfy either standard. The court will enter a separate final order consistent with this opinion. DONE and ORDERED this June 28, 2021.

ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE