GRAY v. BARNHART, No. 1:2012cv00373 - Document 19 (D. Me. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re:dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 16 Report and Recommendations. No Certificate of Appealability should issue becaus e 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 NANCY TORRESEN. (mjlt)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE JOHN GRAY, Petitioner, v. PATRICIA BARNHART, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 1:12-CV-00373-NT ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on April 4, 2013 her Recommended Decision. The Plaintiff filed his objection to the Recommended Decision on April 23, 2013. 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 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 further ORDERED that the Petitioner s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition (ECF No. 1) be and hereby is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as time-barred, and relief is DENIED. 3. It is further ORDERED that no certificate of appealability should 1 issue in the event the Plaintiff 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. /s/ Nancy Torresen NANCY TORRESEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 6th day of May, 2013. 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.