Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Journet v. Magnusson, 1:19-cv-00226-JDL. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Maine Number: infdco20191121b02 Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE JON D. LEVY , Chief District Judge . United States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison filed his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 6) with the Court on September 27, 2019, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2019), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, regarding Respondent Matthew Magnusson's request for dismissal (ECF No. 3) of Petitioner Michael Journet's petition for a writ of hab
More

ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison filed his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 6) with the Court on September 27, 2019, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2019), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, regarding Respondent Matthew Magnusson's request for dismissal (ECF No. 3) of Petitioner Michael Journet's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1). The time within which to file objections has expired, and no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge provided notice that a party's failure to object would waive the right to de novo review and appeal.

I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, and have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision. I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision and determine that no further proceeding is necessary.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 6) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED. It is further ORDERED that no certificate of appealability should issue in the event the Petitioner files a notice of appeal because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2) (West 2019).

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer