HARGRAVE v. U.S., 1:12CV989 (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20130820b17
Visitors: 15
Filed: Aug. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 19, 2013
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. BEATY, District Judge. On May 28, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Petitioner filed objections [Doc. #184] to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636. Petitioner subsequently submitted additional evidence [Doc. #185]. The Court has reviewed Petitioner's additional evidence and his objections de novo and finds they do not change the substance of the Un
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. BEATY, District Judge. On May 28, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Petitioner filed objections [Doc. #184] to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636. Petitioner subsequently submitted additional evidence [Doc. #185]. The Court has reviewed Petitioner's additional evidence and his objections de novo and finds they do not change the substance of the Uni..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. BEATY, District Judge.
On May 28, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Petitioner filed objections [Doc. #184] to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636. Petitioner subsequently submitted additional evidence [Doc. #185]. The Court has reviewed Petitioner's additional evidence and his objections de novo and finds they do not change the substance of the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [Doc. #181], which is affirmed and adopted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, to the extent Petitioner seeks to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, Petitioner's Motion is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent Petitioner's Motion could be construed as a Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the Motion is dismissed sua sponte without prejudice to Petitioner filing a Motion for Authorization in the Court of Appeals as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244 and Fourth Circuit Local Rule 22(d) and that, finding no substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional right affecting the conviction, nor a debatable procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
