INMAN v. LANDRY, No. 2:2015cv00113 - Document 26 (D. Me. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 23 Report and Recommendations. 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.; granting 25 Motion to Dismiss; denying in part and dismissing in part 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

Download PDF
INMAN v. LANDRY Doc. 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE FRANK INMAN, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT LANDRY, Superintendent, Maine Correctional Center, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:15-cv-00113-GZS ) ) ) ) ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE No objections having been filed to the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision (Docket No. 23) filed June 25, 2012, the Recommended Decision is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that in regard to Plaintiff’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeus Corpus, it is DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part. 1. With respect to the “mixed” claims set forth in Ground One (ineffective assistance of counsel) and Ground Two (prosecutorial misconduct), the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court reserve ruling on these grounds pending the defendant’s decision on proceeding on one or both grounds. I affirm the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. On July 8th, 2015, the defendant, prior to my action on the recommended decision, elected to proceed only on Ground Two (Docket No. 25), the issue of prosecutorial misconduct. Thus the Court will, pursuant to the recommended decision, establish a schedule to address the issues contained in Ground Two. Dockets.Justia.com 2. With respect to Grounds Three and Four of the Petition, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted under Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and DISMISSES Grounds Three and Four with prejudice. 3. It is hereby ORDERED that with respect to the partial dismissal contained in this Order a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases is DENIED 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 __ United States District Judge Dated this 4th day of August, 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.