Dodge v. Hobbs, No. 5:2014cv00172 - Document 17 (E.D. Ark. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. Dodge's 2 petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. The requested relief is denied, and any pending motions are denied as moot. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 12/29/2014. (ks)

Download PDF
Dodge v. Hobbs Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION CHRISTOPHER DODGE, ADC #151850 v. PETITIONER No. 5:14CV00172 JLH-JJV RAY HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT ORDER The Court has reviewed the proposed findings and recommended disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and the petitioner’s objections. After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record in this case, including the record of the state court proceedings filed in this action on December 4, 2014, the Court concludes that the proposed findings and recommended disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court, the Court must determine whether to issue a certificate of appealability in the final order. In § 2254 cases, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). The Court finds no issue on which Christopher Dodge has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Thus, the certificate of appealability is denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Dodge’s petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. Document #2. The requested relief is denied, and any pending motions are denied as moot. DATED this 29th day of December, 2014. J. LEON HOLMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dockets.Justia.com

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.