REESE v. STATE OF MAINE, No. 1:2014cv00344 - Document 11 (D. Me. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE denying as moot 6 Motion for Order; adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 9 Report and Recommendations; dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. No Certificate of Appealability shall issue because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (nwd)

Download PDF
REESE v. STATE OF MAINE Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE GEOFFREY DEMOND REESE, Petitioner, v. STATE OF MAINE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:14-cr-00344-GZS ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on December 10, 2014, his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 9). Petitioner filed his Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 10) on December 31, 2014. 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 his Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. 1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 9) is hereby AFFIRMED. 2. It is hereby ORDERED that Petition Under Section 2254 (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED. 3. It is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Release (ECF No. 6) is DENIED as moot. Dockets.Justia.com 4. It is hereby ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not be issued because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). /s/George Z. Singal U.S. District Judge Dated this 6th day of January, 2015.

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.