Gaddis v. Woodourf

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Corey L Maze on 6/4/2021. (MEB2)

Download PDF
FILED 2021 Jun-04 PM 03:31 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION THOMAS GADDIS, Petitioner, v. CHAD WOODOURF, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:21-cv-00566-CLM-SGC MEMORANDUM OPINION The magistrate judge entered a report on May 6, 2021, recommending this federal habeas petition filed by Thomas Gaddis be dismissed for failing to assert any claims cognizable, or seek any relief available, in a federal habeas corpus action and/or for failing to exhaust state court remedies. (Doc. 3 at 7). 1 Additionally, the magistrate judge recommended a certificate of appealability be denied. (Doc. 3 at 7-8). While advised of his right to file specific written objections to the report and recommendation within fourteen (14) calendar days (Doc. 3 at 8), Gaddis has not submitted objections, or any other response, within the prescribed time. After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s report, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS her recommendations. In 1 Gaddis’s initial petition invoked 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1 at 1). In a later-filed notice, Gaddis claimed he was pursuing relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 2 at 1). The magistrate judge discussed the reasons Gaddis was not entitled to relief under either statute. (Doc. 3 at 3-5). accordance with the recommendations, the court finds Gaddis’s federal habeas petition is due to be DISMISSED. Furthermore, because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, a certificate of appealability is due to be DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings. A separate order will be entered. DONE this June 4, 2021. _________________________________ COREY L. MAZE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?