TRACY v. MURPHY et al, No. 1:2014cv00336 - Document 5 (D. Me. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE denying 2 Motion for Instant Hearing; adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 4 Report and Recommendations for 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by PAUL DAVID TRA CY, [ 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.; denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (dfr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
TRACY v. MURPHY et al Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE PAUL DAVID TRACY, Petitioner, v. THE HON. MICHAELA MURPHY, et al., Respondents ) ) ) ) ) Docket no. 1:14-cv-00336-NT ) ) ) ) ) ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On September 19, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copies to counsel, his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 4). The time within which to file objections has expired, and no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge notified the parties that failure to object would waive their right to de novo review and appeal. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED. It is further ORDERED that: 1. The petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. section 2254 be DISMISSED; 2. A certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases be DENIED because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. ยง 2253(c)(2); and 3. The Petitioner s motion for instant hearing (ECF No. 2) be DENIED. SO ORDERED. /s/ Nancy Torresen United States District Judge Dated this 8th day of October, 2014. 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.
