SCOTT v. KELLEY, 14-6078. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20151118738
Visitors: 28
Filed: Nov. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 17, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROBERT T. DAWSON , District Judge . On this 17th day of November 2015, there comes on for consideration the report and recommendation filed in this case on April 29, 2015, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate for the Western District of Arkansas. (Doc. 23). Also before the Court are Petitioner's objections (Doc. 28). The court has reviewed this case de novo and, being well and sufficiently advised, finds as follows: The report and recommendation is proper
Summary: ORDER ROBERT T. DAWSON , District Judge . On this 17th day of November 2015, there comes on for consideration the report and recommendation filed in this case on April 29, 2015, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate for the Western District of Arkansas. (Doc. 23). Also before the Court are Petitioner's objections (Doc. 28). The court has reviewed this case de novo and, being well and sufficiently advised, finds as follows: The report and recommendation is proper ..
More
ORDER
ROBERT T. DAWSON, District Judge.
On this 17th day of November 2015, there comes on for consideration the report and recommendation filed in this case on April 29, 2015, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate for the Western District of Arkansas. (Doc. 23). Also before the Court are Petitioner's objections (Doc. 28).
The court has reviewed this case de novo and, being well and sufficiently advised, finds as follows: The report and recommendation is proper and should be and hereby is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition (doc. 2) is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. Further, Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Finally, Petitioner's various pro se motions (docs. 24, 26, 29, 31-33) are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
