WILLIAMS v. NEELY, 1:13CV89. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20140326d97
Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. BEATY, Jr., District Judge. On February 26, 2014, 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 a document titled, Request to Take Judicial Notice [Doc. #16], and objections [Doc. #17] to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636. The Court has reviewed Petitioner's request for judicial notice and objections de novo and finds they do not change the substa
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. BEATY, Jr., District Judge. On February 26, 2014, 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 a document titled, Request to Take Judicial Notice [Doc. #16], and objections [Doc. #17] to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636. The Court has reviewed Petitioner's request for judicial notice and objections de novo and finds they do not change the substan..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. BEATY, Jr., District Judge.
On February 26, 2014, 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 a document titled, Request to Take Judicial Notice [Doc. #16], and objections [Doc. #17] to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636. The Court has reviewed Petitioner's request for judicial notice and objections de novo and finds they do not change the substance of the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [Doc. #14] which is affirmed and adopted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #8] is granted, that the Petition [Doc. #2] is denied, that this action is dismissed, 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
