FRANCO v. STATE OF MAINE, No. 1:2018cv00508 - Document 34 (D. Me. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE adopting 15 Report and Recommendation re: 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 D. BROCK HORNBY. (clp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FRANCO v. STATE OF MAINE Doc. 34 Case 1:18-cv-00508-DBH Document 34 Filed 05/08/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 131 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ANDREW FRANCO, PETITIONER V. STATE OF MAINE, RESPONDENT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL NO. 1:18-CV-508-DBH ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On August 7, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with a copy to the parties, his Recommended Decision on 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition. At the petitioner’s request, several extensions of time to file an objection were granted. A court mailing to the petitioner establishing a new filing deadline was returned as undeliverable on March 23, 2020. The Maine Attorney General’s office provided a new address for the petitioner and the mailing was re-sent on April 16, 2020, and has not been returned. The extended time within which to file an objection expired on May 4, 2020. No objection has been filed. The Magistrate Judge notified the parties that failure to object would waive their right to de novo review and appeal. I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record. I note and correct a date error on page 4 of the Recommended Decision. The last sentence in the carry-over paragraph should read: “That period expired on October 6, 2015, making Petitioner’s judgment final on Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:18-cv-00508-DBH Document 34 Filed 05/08/20 Page 2 of 2 October 7, 2015.” adjudicated by PageID #: 132 I have made a de novo determination of all matters 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. An evidentiary hearing is not warranted under Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Petitioner’s petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED. I DENY a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 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 8TH DAY OF MAY, 2020 /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.
