LENA v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, MAINE et al, No. 1:2011cv00307 - Document 21 (D. Me. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 15 Report and Recommendations; denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; denying 17 Motion to Supplement; denying 19 Motion for a Show Cause Hearing. No Certificate of A ppealability 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. (lrc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Maine MICHAEL LENA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, MAINE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:11-cv-307-GZS ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on September 6, 2011, her Recommended Decision (Docket No. 15). Petitioner filed a Motion to Supplement his Habeas Petition (Docket No. 17) on September 12, 2011. In addition, Petitioner filed a Motion for Show Cause Evidentiary Hearing and his Objection to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 19) on September 15, 2011. 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 Petitioner s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) is DENIED as there was no unreasonable application of federal law in either the Maine Law Court s decision to deny a certificate of probable cause or the habeas decision of the associate justice. 3. It is hereby ORDERED that a certificate of appealability should not issue in the event that the Petitioner files a Notice of Appeal because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. ยง 2253(c)(2). 4. It is hereby ORDERED that both Petitioner s Motion to Supplement his Habeas Petition (Docket No. 17) and his Motion for Show Cause Evidentiary Hearing (Docket No. 19) are DENIED. /s/George Z. Singal_____________ U.S. District Judge Dated this 4th day of October, 2011.
]]>
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.
