DANIELS v. CREWS, 3:13cv149/MCR/EMT. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20140909667
Visitors: 22
Filed: Sep. 08, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 08, 2014
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge. This cause comes on for consideration upon the Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated April 8, 2014 (doc. 36). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The Court has made a de novo determination of the timely filed objections. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and t
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge. This cause comes on for consideration upon the Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated April 8, 2014 (doc. 36). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The Court has made a de novo determination of the timely filed objections. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and th..
More
ORDER
M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge.
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated April 8, 2014 (doc. 36). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The Court has made a de novo determination of the timely filed objections.
Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections thereto timely filed, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1. The Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. Respondent's motion to dismiss (doc. 30) is GRANTED.
3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice, because the claims asserted therein are procedurally barred from federal review.
4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
