Bagley v. Monk et al, No. 1:2016cv00519 - Document 13 (N.D. Ala. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 6/16/2016. (PSM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bagley v. Monk et al Doc. 13 FILED 2016 Jun-16 PM 01:01 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION JAMES EDWARD BAGLEY, Petitioner, vs. WARDEN GARY WILLIAMS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case Number: 1:16-cv-00519-LSC-JHE MEMORANDUM OPINION On May 11, 2016, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 12). No objections have been filed. The court has considered the entire file in this action, together with the report and recommendation, and has reached an independent conclusion that the report and recommendation is due to be adopted and approved. Accordingly, the court hereby adopts and approves the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge as the findings and conclusions of this court. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be DISMISSED. A separate Order will be entered. 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, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 1 Dockets.Justia.com further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). This Court finds Petitioner’s claims do not satisfy either standard. DONE and ORDERED on June 16, 2016. _____________________________ L. Scott Coogler United States District Judge 182184 2
]]>
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.
