THOMPSON v. HOBBS, 5:11CV00292 BSM. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20120203721
Visitors: 20
Filed: Feb. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 02, 2012
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER, District Judge. The proposed findings and recommended disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young have been reviewed. After carefully considering this document and making a de novo review of the record, it is concluded that the proposed findings and recommended disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety in all respects. An appropriate judgment will issue. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253 and Rule 11 of the Rul
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER, District Judge. The proposed findings and recommended disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young have been reviewed. After carefully considering this document and making a de novo review of the record, it is concluded that the proposed findings and recommended disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety in all respects. An appropriate judgment will issue. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253 and Rule 11 of the Rule..
More
ORDER
BRIAN S. MILLER, District Judge.
The proposed findings and recommended disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young have been reviewed. After carefully considering this document and making a de novo review of the record, it is concluded that the proposed findings and recommended disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety in all respects. An appropriate judgment will issue.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2554 Cases in the United States District Court, a determination of whether a certificate of appealability should issue must be included in the final order. In section 2254 cases, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). It is hereby found that petitioner has not made a such a showing. Accordingly, the certificate of appealability is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
