Ridley v. State of Georgia et al, No. 1:2015cv04139 - Document 37 (N.D. Ga. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER denying as moot 19 Motion for Hearing; denying as moot 3 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; denying as moot 3 Motion to Dismiss ; denying as moot 27 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; denying as moot 28 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; denying as moot 32 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; denying as moot 4 Motion for TRO; denying as moot 5 Motion for Hearing; denying as moot 36 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; denying as moot 8 Motion for Writ of Mandamus; denying as mo ot 13 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; denying as moot 14 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; denying as moot 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The 34 Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted as the opinion and order of this Court. This action is DISMISSED. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 04/19/16. (sk)

Download PDF
Ridley v. State of Georgia et al Doc. 37 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION EDWARD TYRONE RIDLEY, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1 :15-CV-4139-RWS STATE OF GEORGIA, et al., Respondents. ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins, III [Doc. No. 34]. No objections have been iled thereto. Having carefully considered the record and the Report and Recommendation, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 34] is hereby approved and adopted as the opinion and order of this Court. As such, Petitioner's original habeas petition [Doc. No. 1] and his ten motions asking the Court to grant habeas relief [Doc. Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14, 19, 27, 28, and 32] are DENIED as moot. Petitioner's Motion to Submit Double Jeopardy as Additional Ground [Doc. No. 36] was not the subject of the Report and Recommendation, but it is likewise DENIED as moot. This action is DISMISSED. A Certiicate of Appealability is A072A (Rev.8/8 2) Dockets.Justia.com DENIED. SO ORDERED, this ray of April, 2016. United States District Judg 2 AO 72A (Rev.S/8 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.