ISLEY v. U.S., 1:05CR216-2 (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20150224c84
Visitors: 20
Filed: Feb. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER N. CARLTON TILLEY, Jr., Senior District Judge. On March 27, 2012, 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. #122] to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636. The Court has reviewed Petitioner's objections de novo and finds they do not change the substance of the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [Doc. #120] which is affirmed
Summary: ORDER N. CARLTON TILLEY, Jr., Senior District Judge. On March 27, 2012, 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. #122] to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636. The Court has reviewed Petitioner's objections de novo and finds they do not change the substance of the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [Doc. #120] which is affirmed a..
More
ORDER
N. CARLTON TILLEY, Jr., Senior District Judge.
On March 27, 2012, 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. #122] to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636.
The Court has reviewed Petitioner's objections de novo and finds they do not change the substance of the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [Doc. #120] which is affirmed and adopted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED sua sponte for failure to obtain certification for this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 application by filing a Motion for Authorization in the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit as required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 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
