Gaddis v. Ivy et al, No. 1:2021cv00588 - Document 3 (N.D. Ala. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 6/7/2021. (KAM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gaddis v. Ivy et al Doc. 3 FILED 2021 Jun-07 AM 10:59 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION THOMAS GADDIS, Petitioner, v. KAY IVY, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:21-cv-00588-AKK-SGC MEMORANDUM OPINION The magistrate judge entered a report on May 5, 2021, recommending this federal habeas petition filed by Thomas Gaddis be dismissed for failing to assert any claims cognizable, or seek any relief available, in a federal habeas corpus action and/or for failing to exhaust state court remedies. Doc. 2 at 7.1 Additionally, the magistrate judge recommended a certificate of appealability be denied. Id. at 7-8. While advised of his right to file specific written objections to the report and recommendation within fourteen (14) calendar days, id. at 8, Gaddis has not submitted objections, or any other response, within the prescribed time. After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s report, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS her recommendations. In 1 While docketed as arising under § 28 U.S.C. 2254, the petition does not specify whether it is brought pursuant to § 2254 or 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The report and recommendation explains why Gaddis is not entitled to relief under either statute. Dockets.Justia.com accordance with the recommendations, the court finds Gaddis’s federal habeas petition is due to be DISMISSED. Furthermore, because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, a certificate of appealability is 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 order will be entered. DONE the 4th day of June, 2021. _________________________________ ABDUL K. KALLON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
