DEPHILIPPO v. WARDEN, MAINE STATE PRISON, No. 1:2009cv00609 - Document 17 (D. Me. 2010)

Court Description: AMENDED ORDER affirming Report and Recommended Decision re 10 Report and Recommendations for 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. No Certificate of Appealability should issue because there is no substantial issue that could be presented on appeal. See Fed.R.App.P.22 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Proceedings Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 or Section 2255. See also First Circuit Local Rule 22.0 By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (jgw)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE KIRK DEPHILLIPO, SR., Petitioner, v. WARDEN, MAINE STATE PRISON, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 1:09-CV-609-JAW AMENDED1ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on April 16, 2010 her Recommended Decision. The Plaintiff filed his objections to the Recommended Decision on June 17, 2010. I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. 1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED. 2. It is further ORDERED that the Petitioner s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition (Docket # 1) be and hereby is DENIED. 3. It is further ORDERED that no certificate of appealability should issue in the event the Plaintiff files a notice of appeal because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 1 Order Amended to correct spelling of Petitioner s name. SO ORDERED. /s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr. JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 21st day of June, 2010 2

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.