Emmons v. Artus, No. 9:2009cv00675 - Document 21 (N.D.N.Y 2011)
Court Description: DECISION and ORDER: The 15 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in whole. ORDERED that the petition of Mark L. Emmons is DENIED; the petition is DISMISSED; Plaintiff's motion to amend/correct the petition (Docket No. 17 ) and his motion for an evidentiary hearing (Docket No. 19 ), are DENIED as moot. A Certificate of Appealability will not be issued in this matter. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 3/8/11. {order served via regular mail on all non-ecf parties}(nas)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Emmons v. Artus Doc. 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------MARK L. EMMONS, Petitioner, vs 9:09-CV-675 DALE ARTUS, Respondent. -----------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: MARK L. EMMONS Petitioner, Pro Se 05-B-1832 Clinton Correctional Facility P.O. Box 2002 Dannemora, NY 12929 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for Respondent Department of Law The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 LEA L. LaFERLITA, ESQ. Asst. Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER The petitioner, Mark L. Emmons, brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 in the above action. By a report-recommendation dated January 10, 2011, the Honorable David R. Homer, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. Petitioner has filed timely objections to the report and recommendation, as well as a motion to amend/correct the petition (Docket No. 17) and a motion for an evidentiary hearing (Docket No. 19). Dockets.Justia.com Based upon a de novo determination of the report and recommendation, including the portions to which petitioner has objected, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Rule 10, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. The petition of Mark L. Emmons is DENIED; 2. The petition is DISMISSED; 3. Plaintiff s motion to amend/correct the petition (Docket No. 17) and his motion for an evidentiary hearing (Docket No. 19), are DENIED as moot. 4. A Certificate of Appealability will not be issued in this matter; and 5. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 8, 2011 Utica, New York. - 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.
