Gaddis v. Ivy et al
Thomas Gaddis |
Kay Ivy, Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The and Chief Justice |
1:2021cv00588 |
April 27, 2021 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
Staci G Cornelius |
Abdul K Kallon |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on June 7, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 4 FINAL JUDGMENT in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion and with Rule 58 FRCP, the federal habeas petition is DISMISSED; a certificate of appealability is DENIED: the parties shall bear their respective costs. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 6/4/2021. (KAM) |
Filing 3 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 6/7/2021. (KAM) |
Filing 2 MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Thomas Gaddis; For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS Gaddis petition 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. Additionally, in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 2254 Proceedings, the undersigned RECOMMENDS a certificate of appealability be DENIED to the extent it may be required. Objections to R&R due by 5/19/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Staci G Cornelius on 05/05/2021. (AKD) |
Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Thomas Gaddis.(AKD) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Alabama Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.