Bailey et al v. Gentry et al, No. 5:2021cv01409 - Document 12 (N.D. Ala. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Corey L. Maze on 5/26/2022. (SRD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bailey et al v. Gentry et al Doc. 12 FILED 2022 May-26 PM 03:38 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION JOEY LEE BAILEY, Petitioner, v. 5:21-cv-1409-CLM-GMB SHERIFF MATT GENTRY, et al., Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION The magistrate judge entered a report (doc. 11), recommending that the court deny petitioner’s motions for evidentiary hearing (docs. 9 & 10) and dismiss this petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. The court hasn’t received any objections. After considering the record and the magistrate judge’s report, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. Consistent with that recommendation the court will DENY the motions for evidentiary hearing (docs. 9 & 10) and DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court will enter a separate, final judgment. This court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the petitioner. The 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 further,” Miller v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal Dockets.Justia.com quotations omitted). The court finds the petitioner’s claims do not satisfy either standard. So the court won’t issue a certificate of appealability. Done on May 26, 2022. _________________________________ COREY L. MAZE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
