Gaddis v. Kilgore et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 2/12/2016. (AVC)

FILED
2016 Feb-12 PM 01:41
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
THOMAS GADDIS,
Petitioner,
v.

SHERIFF JIMMY KILGORE and
CAPTAIN RON SMITH, Jail
Administrator,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:16-cv-0075-LSC-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an action for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by
Thomas Gaddis, pro se. He alleges that he is a pre-trial detainee being held unlawfully in the
Talladega County Jail based upon charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, in violation of
Ala. Code § 13A-12-217 and possession of drug paraphernalia, in violation of Ala. Code § 13A12-260(d)(1). (Doc. 1). On January 20, 2016, the magistrate judge entered a report and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that the action be dismissed
without prejudice based both on Petitioner’s failure to exhaust available State remedies and on
the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). (Doc. 14). That same day, a
copy of the report and recommendation was mailed to Petitioner, which further advised him of
his right to file objections to the report and recommendation within 14 days. (Id.). That period
has expired, however, and no objections have been filed.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file,

including the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court is of the opinion that the
magistrate judge’s findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is
ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is due to DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Further, a petitioner is required to obtain a certificate of appealability in order to appeal
from “the final in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out
process issued by a state court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). That language encompasses final
orders relative to habeas petitions by detainees awaiting trial in state court on criminal charges.
See Evans v. Oliver, 2013 WL 4027766, at *4 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 7, 2013); Stringer v. Williams, 161
F.3d 259, 262 (5th Cir. 1998); cf. Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1063 (11th Cir. 2003);
Hiteshaw v. Butterfield, 262 F. App’x 162, 163 (11th Cir. 2008). It is appropriate for the court to
either issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
applicant. See Rules 1(b), 11(a), RULES GOVERNING § 2254 HABEAS PROCEEDINGS. The court
concludes that the instant petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of
reason, so a certificate of appealability is due to be DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484-85 (2000). A separate Final Judgment will be entered.
Done this 12th day of February 2016.

L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
[160704]

2