Davis v. Lopinto, No. 2:2022cv02551 - Document 7 (E.D. La. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: The Court, having considered de novo Plaintiff Larry Davis' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition, the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the failure of the Plainti ff to file any objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, hereby approves the Report and Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion in this matter. In doing so, the Court notes that it has construed Plaintiff Larry Davis& #039; pro se pleading liberally.IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claims alleged in the Petition against Defendant, Joseph Lopinto, are DISMISSED, with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and § 1915A as frivolous and malicious, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Wendy B Vitter on 10/5/22.(cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Davis v. Lopinto Doc. 7 Case 2:22-cv-02551-WBV Document 7 Filed 10/05/22 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LARRY DAVIS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 22-2551 JOSEPH LOPINTO SECTION: D (1) ORDER AND REASONS The Court, having considered de novo Plaintiff Larry Davis’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition,1 the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge,2 and the failure of the Plaintiff to file any objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,3 hereby approves the Report and Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion in this matter. In doing so, the Court notes that it has construed Plaintiff Larry Davis’ pro se pleading liberally.4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claims alleged in the Petition5 against Defendant, Joseph Lopinto, are DISMISSED, with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and § 1915A as frivolous and malicious, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. New Orleans, Louisiana, October 5, 2022. ______________________________ WENDY B. VITTER United States District Judge R. Doc. 3. R. Doc. 6. 3 Objections were due September 20, 2022. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court has allowed additional time for objections. None have been filed as of the date of this Order. 4 See Coleman v. United States, 912 F.3d 824, 828 (5th Cir. 2019). 5 R. Doc. 3. 1 2 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
