Jones v. Headley et al, No. 7:2021cv00997 - Document 10 (N.D. Ala. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Corey L. Maze on 3/4/2022. (SRD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones v. Headley et al Doc. 10 FILED 2022 Mar-04 PM 01:35 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA WESTERN DIVISION MARCUS ALEXANDER JONES, Plaintiff, v. 7:21-cv-997-CLM-JHE JOSEPH H. HEADLEY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner Marcus Alexander Jones filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). On February 1, 2022, the magistrate judge entered a report, recommending the court grant the respondents’ motion for summary disposition, (doc. 6), and dismiss Jones’ petition based on his failure to exhaust state court remedies. (Doc. 9). The magistrate judge also recommended the court deny Jones’ motion for summary disposition, (doc. 8). (Doc. 9). The magistrate judge advised Jones that he had 14 days to object to the report and recommendation. But the court hasn’t received any objections. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS his recommendation. So the court will GRANT the respondents’ motion for summary disposition based on Jones’ failure to exhaust his state remedies (doc. 6). For the same reason, the court will DENY Jones’ motion for summary disposition (doc. 8). Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings requires the court to “issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” See Rule 11, Rules Governing § 2254 1 Dockets.Justia.com Proceedings. 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 further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). The court finds Jones’ claims do not satisfy either standard. So the court will not issue a certificate of appealability. The court will enter a separate final order. Done on March 4, 2022. _________________________________ COREY L. MAZE 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.
