Filed: Oct. 07, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 07, 2016
Summary: ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY , District Judge . On August 30, 2016, Magistrate Judge David L. Horan entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), recommending that the court deny Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 3), filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, and dismiss with prejudice this action. No objections to the Report were received as of the date of this order. Having reviewed the pleadings,
Summary: ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY , District Judge . On August 30, 2016, Magistrate Judge David L. Horan entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), recommending that the court deny Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 3), filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, and dismiss with prejudice this action. No objections to the Report were received as of the date of this order. Having reviewed the pleadings, ..
More
ORDER
SAM A. LINDSAY, District Judge.
On August 30, 2016, Magistrate Judge David L. Horan entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), recommending that the court deny Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 3), filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and dismiss with prejudice this action. No objections to the Report were received as of the date of this order.
Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 3) and dismisses with prejudice this action.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court denies a certificate of appealability.* The court determines that Petitioner has failed to show: (1) that reasonable jurists would find this court's "assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong;" or (2) that reasonable jurists would find "it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right" and "debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In support of this determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the magistrate judge's report filed in this case. In the event that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
It is so ordered
