Filed: Aug. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAN E. DuBOIS , District Judge . AND NOW , this 26th day of August, 2015, upon consideration of Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing filed by pro se petitioner, Richard Kitcherman (Document No. 7, filed February 26, 2014), Motion for Appointment of Counsel filed by pro se petitioner (Document No. 8, filed February 26, 2014) and Reconsider Application for Certificate of Appealability with Suggestions in Support filed by pro se petitioner (Document No. 26, filed June 29, 2015), and
Summary: ORDER JAN E. DuBOIS , District Judge . AND NOW , this 26th day of August, 2015, upon consideration of Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing filed by pro se petitioner, Richard Kitcherman (Document No. 7, filed February 26, 2014), Motion for Appointment of Counsel filed by pro se petitioner (Document No. 8, filed February 26, 2014) and Reconsider Application for Certificate of Appealability with Suggestions in Support filed by pro se petitioner (Document No. 26, filed June 29, 2015), and t..
More
ORDER
JAN E. DuBOIS, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 26th day of August, 2015, upon consideration of Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing filed by pro se petitioner, Richard Kitcherman (Document No. 7, filed February 26, 2014), Motion for Appointment of Counsel filed by pro se petitioner (Document No. 8, filed February 26, 2014) and Reconsider Application for Certificate of Appealability with Suggestions in Support filed by pro se petitioner (Document No. 26, filed June 29, 2015), and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret dated July 24, 2015, no objections having been filed, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret dated July 24, 2015, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. Pro se petitioner's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED;
3. Pro se petitioner's Reconsider Application for Certificate of Appealability with Suggestions in Support is DENIED. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate (a) this Court's decision that the petition does not state a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, or (b) the propriety of this Court's procedural rulings with respect to petitioner's claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); and,
4. Pro se petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.
