Filed: Sep. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 24, 2015
Summary: ORDER TOM S. LEE , District Judge . This cause came on this date to be heard upon the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo, and the court, having fully reviewed the report and recommendation entered in this cause on July 22, 2015, and being duly advised in the premises, finds that said report and recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of this court. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judg
Summary: ORDER TOM S. LEE , District Judge . This cause came on this date to be heard upon the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo, and the court, having fully reviewed the report and recommendation entered in this cause on July 22, 2015, and being duly advised in the premises, finds that said report and recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of this court. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge..
More
ORDER
TOM S. LEE, District Judge.
This cause came on this date to be heard upon the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo, and the court, having fully reviewed the report and recommendation entered in this cause on July 22, 2015, and being duly advised in the premises, finds that said report and recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of this court.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo entered on July 22, 2015, be, and the same is hereby adopted as the finding of this court, and the petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability should not issue. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right" and that "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether [this] court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000).
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED.
