Settle v. Bell, No. 3:2009cv00560 - Document 26 (M.D. Tenn. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER: In accordance with the Memorandum contemporaneously entered, the Court finds no merit in the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, the petitioner's petition is DENIED and this action is hereby DISMISSED. Should the petitioner f ile a timely Notice of Appeal, such Notice shall be treated as an application for a certificate of appealability, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), which will NOT issue because the petitioner has been unable to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Entry of this order shall constitute the final judgment in this case. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 11/10/09. (cc: pltf by reg and cert mail)(km)

Download PDF
Settle v. Bell Doc. 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION MIKE SETTLE Petitioner, v. RICKY BELL, WARDEN Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:09-0560 Judge Trauger ORDER The Court has before it a pro se prisoner petition (Docket Entry No. 1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, for writ of habeas corpus, the respondent’s Answer (Docket Entry No. 20) to the petition, and the petitioner’s Response In Opposition to the Respondent’s Notice of Filing (Docket Entry No. 24). In accordance with the Memorandum contemporaneously entered, the Court finds no merit in the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, the petitioner’s petition is DENIED and this action is hereby DISMISSED. Should the petitioner file a timely Notice of Appeal, such Notice shall be treated as an application for a certificate of appealability, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), which will NOT issue because the petitioner has been unable to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Entry of this order shall constitute the final judgment in this case. It is so ORDERED. ______________________________ Aleta A. Trauger United States District Judge Dockets.Justia.com

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.