Turney v. Alabama State of et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 4/6/2016. (PSM)

FILED
2016 Apr-06 PM 02:01
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
CALVIN TURNEY,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN C. PRICE and THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF ALABAMA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case Number: 5:13-cv 01100-LSC-JHE

Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 26, 2016, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (doc.
8), recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice. On
March 7, 2013, the U.S. Mail returned the report and recommendation, with an indication that
the petitioner’s “EOS” (or end of sentence) date was “08/21/2015” and that he was no longer
there. (Doc. 9). A search on the Alabama Department of Corrections’ website using the “inmate
search” function for Calvin Turner renders no records, confirming the petitioner’s release. And,
Petitioner has not provided the court with an updated address. Therefore, no objections have
been filed.
The court has considered the entire file in this action, together with the report and
recommendation, and has reached an independent conclusion that the report and
recommendation is due to be adopted and approved.
Accordingly, the court hereby adopts and approves the findings and recommendation of
the magistrate judge as the findings and conclusions of this court. The petition for writ of habeas
corpus is due to be DISMISSED. A separate Order will be entered.

This Court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has a 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). This
Court finds Petitioner’s claims do not satisfy either standard.
DONE and ORDERED on April 6, 2016.

_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
160704