Wenclasky v. Woods, 2:15-cv-149. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20181113l05
Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 09, 2018
Summary: ORDER JANET T. NEFF , District Judge . This is a habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on October 15, 2018, recommending that this Court dismiss the petition with prejudice. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. No objections have been filed, see 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), and the Court issues this Order. The Court will also issue a Judgment in this 2254 proc
Summary: ORDER JANET T. NEFF , District Judge . This is a habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on October 15, 2018, recommending that this Court dismiss the petition with prejudice. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. No objections have been filed, see 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), and the Court issues this Order. The Court will also issue a Judgment in this 2254 proce..
More
ORDER
JANET T. NEFF, District Judge.
This is a habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on October 15, 2018, recommending that this Court dismiss the petition with prejudice. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. No objections have been filed, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the Court issues this Order. The Court will also issue a Judgment in this § 2254 proceeding. See Gillis v. United States, 729 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2013) (requiring a separate judgment in habeas proceedings). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 19) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court and the petition for habeas corpus relief (ECF No. 1) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED as to each issue asserted. See RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES, Rule 11 (requiring the district court to "issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order"). Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find the Court's rulings debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000); Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466, 466-67 (6th Cir. 2001).
Source: Leagle
