LARSEN v. AROOSTOOK UNIFIED COURTS, No. 1:2020cv00413 - Document 9 (D. Me. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE accepting 5 Report and Recommendations, dismissing 1 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 JON D. LEVY. (mlm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
LARSEN v. AROOSTOOK UNIFIED COURTS Doc. 9 Case 1:20-cv-00413-JDL Document 9 Filed 02/19/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE RICHARD LARSEN, III, ) ) ) ) ) 1:20-cv-00413-JDL ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner/ Plaintiff, v. AROOSTOOK UNIFIED COURTS, Respondent/ Defendant. ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Petitioner/ Plaintiff Richard Larsen, III filed a pleading styled as a “Writ of Habeas Corpus” (the “Petition/Complaint”) on November 5, 2020 (ECF No. 1). United States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison filed his Recommended Decision recommending that the Court dismiss the Petition/Complaint on November 13, 2020 (ECF No. 5), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1915, 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2021), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and Rules 4 and 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Larsen filed an objection on January 14, 2021 (ECF No. 8). 1 I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, and have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge. I concur with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge The Report and Recommended decision was initially returned as undeliverable despite being sent to the address that Larsen provided to the Court in this matter. However, Larsen had provided the Court with a different address in an unrelated matter, and the Court ordered that the Report and Recommended Decision be sent to that address. A new response deadline was set, and Larsen responded within the appropriate timeframe. 1 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00413-JDL Document 9 Filed 02/19/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 20 for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 5) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED and that the Petition/Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED. It is further ORDERED that no certificate of appealability should 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.A. § 2253(c)(2). SO ORDERED. Dated this 19th day of February, 2021. /s/ Jon D. Levy CHIEF U.S. 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.
