Tuck v. Hetzel et al (INMATE1)

Filing 5

ORDER ADOPTING 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Mag Judge; denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus; dismissing the petition in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A) as Tuck has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this court to consider his successive habeas application. Signed by Honorable Ira De Ment on 3/21/11. (djy, )

Download PDF
-CSC Tuck v. Hetzel et al (INMATE1) Doc. 5 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION TONEY DEANGELO TUCK, #186423, Petitioner, v. GARY HETZEL, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv106-ID (WO) OPINION and ORDER On February 24, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case to which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. No. 4). Upon an independent review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and the petitioner's objections, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation be and is hereby ADOPTED, the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Tuck on February 9, 2011, be and is hereby DENIED, and the petition be and is hereby DISMISSED in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A) as Tuck has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this court to consider his successive habeas application. Done this 21st day of March, 2011. /s/ Ira DeMent SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dockets.Justia.com

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?