THOMAS v. USA, No. 2:2009cv00058 - Document 15 (D. Me. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 8 Report and Recommendations; ORDER denying Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255); granting 12 Motion for Leave to File. No Certificate of Appealability should issue because there is no substantial issue that could be presented on appeal. See Fed.R.App.P.22b-First Circuit Local rule 22.1. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Maine RUSSELL STEPHEN THOMAS, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 09-58-P-S Crim. No. 4-67-P-S ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on April 28, 2009, her Recommended Decision (Docket No. 8). Plaintiff filed a Response to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 11) on May 26, 2009. In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Supplement Objections to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 12) on June 19, 2009. The Defendant filed an Objection to the Plaintiff s Motion for Leave to Supplement (Docket No. 14) on July 7, 2009. Plaintiff s Motion for Leave to Supplement is GRANTED. I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. 1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED. 2. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff s 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 Motion (Docket No. 1) is DENIED. 3. Should the Defendant file an appeal, a certificate of appealability shall not issue. /s/ George Z. Singal United States District Judge Dated this 23rd day of July, 2009.
]]>
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.
