BELLAVANCE v. LIBERTY, No. 1:2018cv00266 - Document 21 (D. Me. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 17 Report and Recommendations, denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by RAYMOND BELLAVANCE, JR. No Certificate of Appealabil ity 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 D. BROCK HORNBY. (jib)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
BELLAVANCE v. LIBERTY Doc. 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE RAYMOND BELLAVANCE, JR., PETITIONER V. RANDALL LIBERTY, Warden, Maine State Prison, RESPONDENT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CRIMINAL NO. 1:18-CV-266-DBH ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On January 29, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copies to the parties, his Amended Recommended Decision on 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition. The petitioner filed an objection to the Recommended Decision on March 15, 2019. I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in the Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. The motion for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED without an evidentiary hearing. Dockets.Justia.com No certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases shall issue because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). SO ORDERED. DATED THIS 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 /S/D. BROCK HORNBY D. BROCK HORNBY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
