TUCKER v. USA, 1:17CV627. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20171114c35
Visitors: 8
Filed: Nov. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 13, 2017
Summary: ORDER LORETTA C. BIGGS , District Judge . On September 25, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on Petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Petitioner filed objections [ECF No. 8] to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636. The Court has reviewed Petitioner's objections de novo and finds they do not change the substance of the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [ECF No. 6], which is affirmed and ad
Summary: ORDER LORETTA C. BIGGS , District Judge . On September 25, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on Petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Petitioner filed objections [ECF No. 8] to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636. The Court has reviewed Petitioner's objections de novo and finds they do not change the substance of the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [ECF No. 6], which is affirmed and ado..
More
ORDER
LORETTA C. BIGGS, District Judge.
On September 25, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on Petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Petitioner filed objections [ECF No. 8] to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636. The Court has reviewed Petitioner's objections de novo and finds they do not change the substance of the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [ECF No. 6], which is affirmed and adopted. For the same reasons set out in the Recommendation, Petitioner's subsequent Motions [ECF No. 9], will likewise be dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner filing his claims as appropriate in his pending criminal prosecution (Case No. 1:17CR221).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motions [ECF Nos. 3, 4, and 9] are DENIED and this action is DISMISSED sua sponte without prejudice to Petitioner filing his claims as appropriate in his pending criminal case, and that, finding no substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional right, nor a debatable procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
