THORNTON v. LIBERTY, No. 1:2019cv00047 - Document 8 (D. Me. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE accepting Report and Recommendations re: 6 Report and Recommendations. No Certificate of Appealability should issue because there is no substantial issue that could be presented on appe al. 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 and dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without an evidentiary hearing By JUDGE LANCE E. WALKER. (CJD)

Download PDF
THORNTON v. LIBERTY Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE CLIFFORD THORNTON, Petitioner, v. RANDALL LIBERTY, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:19-CV-00047-LEW ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Objection (ECF No. 7) to the United States Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision on 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition (ECF No. 6). I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; 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 AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. The motion for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED and DISMISSED without an evidentiary hearing. Dockets.Justia.com It is further ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will issue from this Court because the Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2). SO ORDERED. Dated this 31st day of October, 2019. /S/ LANCE E. WALKER 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.