HART v. SAMSON, No. 2:2023cv00159 - Document 8 (D. Me. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION & GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES re 3 REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION, 5 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION, 2 MOTION to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Cos ts, 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 GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrt)

Download PDF
HART v. SAMSON Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ROBERT JAMES HART, Petitioner, v. ERIC SAMSON, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) Docket no. 2:23-cv-00159-GZS ) ) ) ) ) ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION & GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES On April 10, 2023, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court his Recommended Decision After Preliminary Review (ECF No. 3). On April 24, 2023, Petitioner filed his Motion to Amend (ECF No. 4). On April 27, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed his Order on Motion to Amend and Supplemental Recommended Decision After Preliminary Review (ECF No. 5). Then, on May 8, 2023, Petitioner then filed his Supplemental Motion to Amend and Secondary Objection to the Recommended Decision After Preliminary Review (ECF No. 7). 1 The Court has made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decisions and concurs with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in those orders. As a result, the Court determines that no further proceedings are necessary with respect to these Recommended Decisions. 1 To the extent that Petitioner includes a motion to further amend in this filing, the Court denies that request as futile but notes that it has fully considered all of the additional information proffered in ECF No. 7 as part of its de novo review of the Recommended Decisions. Dockets.Justia.com It is therefore ORDERED that: 1. The Application to Proceed with Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 2. The Recommended Decisions (ECF Nos. 3 & 5) are hereby AFFIRMED. 3. The Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1), as amended, is hereby DISMISSED. 4. A certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases is hereby DENIED 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. /s/ George Z. Singal United States District Judge Dated this 10th day of May, 2023. 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.