Conrad v. U.S., 1:04CR297-1 (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20160328b59
Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 25, 2016
Summary: ORDER N. CARLTON TILLEY, Jr. , Senior District Judge . On February 28, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Petitioner filed objections [Doc. #133] 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 [Doc. #131] which is aff
Summary: ORDER N. CARLTON TILLEY, Jr. , Senior District Judge . On February 28, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Petitioner filed objections [Doc. #133] 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 [Doc. #131] which is affi..
More
ORDER
N. CARLTON TILLEY, Jr., Senior District Judge.
On February 28, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Petitioner filed objections [Doc. #133] 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 [Doc. #131] which is affirmed and adopted. To the extent Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion [Doc. #134] to obtain documents, that request will be denied in light of the Court's determination here.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion under Rule 60(d)(3) [Doc. #105] and Motion for Clarification [Doc. #126] are DENIED, that Petitioner's Motion to Produce Complete Documents [Doc. #134] is DENIED, and that finding no substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional right affecting the conviction, nor a debatable procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
