court erred when it dismissed his petition without ruling on his motions for Rule 32 discovery or on his ex parte applications for funds. (Issue III in Boyd’s appellate brief.) As Boyd maintains, the circuit court never ruled on his discovery motions or on his ex parte applications for funds. However, Boyd never objected to the circuit court’s failure to rule on those matters and never attempted to invoke a ruling of the circuit court as to those matters. Because Boyd suffered no adverse ruling from the circuit court, this issue is not properly before us for review. See Allen, supra, 825 So.2d at 270-71. See also Conners v. State, 837 So.2d 319, 322 (Ala.Crim.App.2001); cert. denied, 837 So.2d 326 (Ala.2002), overruled on different grounds, Ex parte Deramus, 882 So.2d 878 (Ala.2003) (<HOLDING>); Ruggs, supra, 601 So.2d at 512 (holding that
holding that appellant did not preserve error because he failed to obtain ruling on motion for continuance holding that a habeas petitioner failed to preserve for review a claim regarding the circuit courts failure to rule on his discov ery motion because the petitioner never objected to the courts failure to rule and suffered no adverse ruling holding that a prisoners failure to pursue an appeal in state court is a procedural bar to federal habeas relief unless the petitioner shows both cause for failing to bring the state claim  and actual prejudice from the failure to consider his federal claims holding that a federal court may excuse a state habeas petitioners procedural default if the petitioner can show cause for the failure to raise the claim and prejudice resulting from such failure recognizing that district courts should resolve issues related to jurisdiction or venue prior to ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim