Kelly v. Crow, No. 2:2020cv00118 - Document 16 (N.D. Ala. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 1/4/2021. (KAM)

Download PDF
Kelly v. Crow Doc. 16 FILED 2021 Jan-04 PM 04:43 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ANTHONY KELLY, Petitioner, v. DEPUTY WARDEN JEFFERY BALDWIN, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:20-cv-00118-RDP-HNJ MEMORANDUM OPINION On December 3, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation recommending the court dismiss Anthony Kelly’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice as unexhausted. (Doc. 15). Although the Magistrate Judge advised the parties of their right to file specific written objections within fourteen days, no objections have been received by the court. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the Report and Recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge and ACCEPTS his Recommendation. In accordance with the Recommendation, the court finds the petition is due to be dismissed without prejudice as unexhausted. This court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has 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 Dockets.Justia.com further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). The court finds Kelly’s claims do not satisfy either standard. The court will enter a separate Final Judgment. DONE and ORDERED this January 4, 2021. _________________________________ R. DAVID PROCTOR 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.