From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ridley v. Hetzel

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
Aug 9, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv377-TMH (M.D. Ala. Aug. 9, 2011)

Summary

adopting a report and recommendation regarding the Alabama, Florida, and Georgia statutes

Summary of this case from Umbarger v. Michigan

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv377-TMH.

August 9, 2011


ORDER AND OPINION


On July 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case to which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 15). Upon an independent review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and is hereby ADOPTED and that:

1. The 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief, as amended (Doc. Nos. 1 and 3), are DENIED and that this case is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
2. The motions seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Doc. Nos. 10, 11, and 13) are DENIED as moot.


Summaries of

Ridley v. Hetzel

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
Aug 9, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv377-TMH (M.D. Ala. Aug. 9, 2011)

adopting a report and recommendation regarding the Alabama, Florida, and Georgia statutes

Summary of this case from Umbarger v. Michigan
Case details for

Ridley v. Hetzel

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD RIDLEY, #276808, Petitioner, v. GARY HETZEL, et al., Respondents

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

Date published: Aug 9, 2011

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv377-TMH (M.D. Ala. Aug. 9, 2011)

Citing Cases

Umbarger v. Michigan

Many federal district courts have reached the same conclusion for other state statutes. See, e.g., Burr v.…