DEMOS v. UNITED STATES PRESIDENT, No. 2:2015cv00284 - Document 6 (D. Me. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 4 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. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (mjlt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
DEMOS v. UNITED STATES PRESIDENT Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR., PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES PRESIDENT, RESPONDENT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL NO. 2:15-CR-284-DBH ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On July 24, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with a copy to the petitioner, his Recommended Decision on the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petitioner filed his objection to the Recommended Decision on August 13, 2015. I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in the Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. The petition is DISMISSED. To the extent that the petitioner’s petition is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, I DENY a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases Dockets.Justia.com because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). SO ORDERED. DATED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 /S/D. BROCK HORNBY D. BROCK HORNBY UNITED STATES 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.
