FREEMAN v. STATE OF MAINE, No. 1:2016cv00523 - Document 26 (D. Me. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE, adopting 21 Report and Recommended Decision, dismissing 20 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 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 JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (ccs)

Download PDF
FREEMAN v. STATE OF MAINE Doc. 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ANDREW J. FREEMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF MAINE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:16-cv-00523-JAW ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on June 6, 2017 his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 21). The Petitioner filed his objections to the Recommended Decision on July 26, 2017 (ECF No. 25). 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. 21) is hereby AFFIRMED. 2. It is further ORDERED that the Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Amended Petition (ECF No. 20) be and hereby is DISMISSED. 3. It is further ORDERED that no certificate of appealability should 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). Dockets.Justia.com SO ORDERED. /s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr. JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 3rd day of August, 2017 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.