INMAN v. LANDRY, No. 2:2015cv00243 - Document 21 (D. Me. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 Report and Recommendations, denying 10 Motion to Amend, and 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 GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (MSH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
INMAN v. LANDRY Doc. 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE FRANK INMAN, Petitioner, v. SCOTT LANDRY, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:15-cv-00243-GZS ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE No objections having been filed to the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision (Docket No. 14) filed October 22, 2015, the Recommended Decision is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) Petitioner’s Motion for Habeas Relief under 28 U.S.C. §2254 (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED. (2) A certificate of appealability is DENIED pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). (3) Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Petition (ECF No. 10) is DENIED. _/s/ George Z. Singal __ United States District Judge Dated this 7th day of December, 2015. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
