ARNOLD v. U.S., 1:14CV604. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20150310d47
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. SCHROEDER , District Judge On January 7, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on Petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Petitioner filed objections (Docs. 5, 7 in 1:14CV604) to the Recommendation. 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. 3), which is affirmed and adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. SCHROEDER , District Judge On January 7, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on Petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Petitioner filed objections (Docs. 5, 7 in 1:14CV604) to the Recommendation. 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. 3), which is affirmed and adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that t..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. SCHROEDER, District Judge
On January 7, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on Petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Petitioner filed objections (Docs. 5, 7 in 1:14CV604) to the Recommendation. 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. 3), which is affirmed and adopted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is filed and then DISMISSED sua sponte for Petitioner's failure to seek certification for a second or successive § 2255 motion by filing a Motion for Authorization in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, as required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 2244 and Fourth Circuit Local Rule 22(d). Finding neither a substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional right affecting the convication nor a debatable procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
