Filed: Jun. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAN E. DuBOIS, District Judge. AND NOW , this 5th day of June, 2014, upon consideration of pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, filed by pro se petitioner, Marcellus Jones, the record in this case, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter dated April 15, 2014, no objections to the Report and Recommendation having been filed, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendat
Summary: ORDER JAN E. DuBOIS, District Judge. AND NOW , this 5th day of June, 2014, upon consideration of pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, filed by pro se petitioner, Marcellus Jones, the record in this case, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter dated April 15, 2014, no objections to the Report and Recommendation having been filed, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendati..
More
ORDER
JAN E. DuBOIS, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 5th day of June, 2014, upon consideration of pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, filed by pro se petitioner, Marcellus Jones, the record in this case, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter dated April 15, 2014, no objections to the Report and Recommendation having been filed, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter dated April 15, 2014, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED;
2. The Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, filed by pro se petitioner, Marcellus Jones, is DISMISSED AND DENIED;
3. Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED; and,
4. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate (a) this Court's decision that the petition does not state a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, or (b) the propriety of this Court's procedural rulings with respect to petitioner's claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
