INMAN v. PENOBSCOT COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE DA CHRIS ALMY, No. 1:2017cv00412 - Document 12 (D. Me. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 denying 4 Motion for Bail and dismissing 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 GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (MSH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
INMAN v. PENOBSCOT COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE DA CHRIS ALMY Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE FRANK INMAN, Petitioner, v. PENOBSCOT COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, et al., Respondents ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:17-cv-412-GZS ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE No objections having been filed to the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision (ECF No. 5) filed November 15, 2017, the Recommended Decision is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Section 2254 Motion (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED, and his Motion for Bail (ECF No. 4) is DENIED. 2. A certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases is DENIED because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). _/s/ George Z. Singal __ United States District Judge Dated this 12th day of February, 2018. 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.
