ABBOTT v. BURNHEIMER, No. 1:2012cv00037 - Document 18 (D. Me. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE - adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 12 Report and Recommendations re 7 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by DREW G ABBOTT. To the extent the petitioner has moved for legal counsel, the motion is Denied, no other action is necessary on 15 Motion for Legal Assistance / Motion to Amend. 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 D. BROCK HORNBY. (mnw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE DREW G. ABBOTT, PETITIONER v. SCOTT BURNHEIMER, RESPONDENT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL NO. 1:12-CV-37-DBH ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On April 27, 2012, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copies to the parties, her Recommended Decision on the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody. The petitioner filed his objection to the Recommended Decision on May 22, 2012. The petitioner also filed a document, ECF No. 15, that the Clerk s Office treated as a letter motion for legal assistance and a motion to amend the petition to add additional grounds. But the petitioner did not seek to amend his petition in this document. He did earlier file an amended petition and that amended petition is the basis for the Magistrate Judge s and my ruling. (The petitioner expressed concern about whether the new petition would be added to the first petition it was and whether he signed it he did.) There is no need to appoint counsel in light of the lack of any basis for the petitioner s arguments and to the extent he has moved for legal counsel, the motion is DENIED. No other action is necessary on pleading ECF No. 15. I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in the Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. The petitioner is DENIED relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, with prejudice, and the petition is DISMISSED. No certificate of appealability shall issue in the event the petitioner files a notice of appeal 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. DATED THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012 /S/D. BROCK HORNBY D. BROCK HORNBY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
