Reeves v. Perdue, No. 9:2011cv00442 - Document 17 (N.D.N.Y 2014)
Court Description: DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED that 16 Report and Recommendation is accepted in whole. ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED. Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 5/23/14. {order served via regular mail on petitioner}(nas)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------BELTON REEVES, Petitioner, -v- 9:11-CV-442 RUSSELL PERDUE, Warden, Respondent. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: BELTON REEVES Petitioner, Pro Se 12353-040 Sandstone Federal Correctional Institution P.O. Box 1000 Sandstone, MN 55072 HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York Attorney for Respondent James M. Hanley Federal Building 100 South Clinton Street Syracuse, NY 13261 CHARLES E. ROBERTS, ESQ. Ass't United States Attorney DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Petitioner Belton Reeves brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On May 6, 2014, the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, advised, by Report-Recommendation, that the petition be denied and no certificate of appealability be granted. No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed. Based upon a careful review of entire file and the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, it is ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED. Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 23, 2014 Utica, New York. -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.
