JOURNET v. MAGNUSSON, No. 1:2019cv00226 - Document 7 (D. Me. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 6 Report and Recommendations. 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.; dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (akr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
JOURNET v. MAGNUSSON Doc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE MICHAEL JOURNET, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW MAGNUSSON, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) 1:19-cv-00226-JDL ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE United States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison filed his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 6) with the Court on September 27, 2019, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2019), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, regarding Respondent Matthew Magnusson’s request for dismissal (ECF No. 3) of Petitioner Michael Journet’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1). The time within which to file objections has expired, and no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge provided notice that a party’s failure to object would waive the right to de novo review and appeal. I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, and have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision. I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set Dockets.Justia.com forth in his Recommended Decision and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 6) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED. It is further ORDERED that no certificate of appealability should issue in the event the Petitioner files a notice of appeal because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2) (West 2019). SO ORDERED. Dated this 20th day of November, 2019. /s/ Jon D. Levy CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
