ROYSTER v. U.S., 1:12CV386 (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20150915990
Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER N. CARLTON TILLEY, Jr. , Senior District Judge . On August 21, 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 [Doc. #177] 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. #175], which is affir
Summary: ORDER N. CARLTON TILLEY, Jr. , Senior District Judge . On August 21, 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 [Doc. #177] 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. #175], which is affirm..
More
ORDER
N. CARLTON TILLEY, Jr., Senior District Judge.
On August 21, 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 [Doc. #177] 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. #175], which is affirmed and adopted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #161] is GRANTED, Petitioner's Motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence [Doc. #148] is DENIED, and 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
