Filed: Jan. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER JUAN R. S NCHEZ , Chief District Judge . AND NOW, this 11th day of January, 2019, upon careful and independent consideration of Petitioner Maurice McDonald's pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, and the available state court records, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Richard A. Lloret, to which no objections have been filed, 1 it is ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc
Summary: ORDER JUAN R. S NCHEZ , Chief District Judge . AND NOW, this 11th day of January, 2019, upon careful and independent consideration of Petitioner Maurice McDonald's pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, and the available state court records, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Richard A. Lloret, to which no objections have been filed, 1 it is ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Docu..
More
ORDER
JUAN R. SÁNCHEZ, Chief District Judge.
AND NOW, this 11th day of January, 2019, upon careful and independent consideration of Petitioner Maurice McDonald's pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, and the available state court records, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Richard A. Lloret, to which no objections have been filed,1 it is ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Document 7) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. Respondents' Motion (Document 6) is GRANTED;
3. McDonald's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice; and
4. A certificate of appealability shall not issue, as McDonald has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right nor demonstrated that reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of the procedural aspects of this ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).
FootNotes
1. The Report and Recommendation was sent to all parties of record on November 20, 2018, together with a Notice from the Clerk of Court advising the parties of their obligation to file any objections within 14 days after service of the Notice. See Local R. Civ. P. 72.1 IV(b) ("Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and subsections 1(c) and (d) of this Rule within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof."). As of today's date, no objections have been filed.