HARB v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, No. 1:2009cv00766 - Document 16 (M.D.N.C. 2010)

Court Description: JUDGMENT signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 9/28/10. For the reasons set out in a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered contemporaneously with this Judgment, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent's Motion to Dismisson Statute of Limitati on Grounds (Docket Entry 4 ) is GRANTED, thatthe Petition under § 2254 (Docket Entry 1 ) is DENIED, that Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of his request for appointed counsel (Docket Entry 14 ) is DENIED AS MOOT, and that this act ion be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, finding no substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional right affecting the conviction, nor a debatable procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is denied. (Wilson, JoAnne)

Download PDF
HARB v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA MITCHELL JOSEPH HARB, JR., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. ALVIN W. KELLER, JR., Respondent. 1:09CV766 J U D G M E N T Auld, Magistrate Judge For the reasons set out in a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered contemporaneously with this Judgment, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss on Statute of Limitation Grounds (Docket Entry 4) is GRANTED, that the Petition Petitioner’s under motion § 2254 for (Docket Entry reconsideration 1) of is DENIED, his that request for appointed counsel (Docket Entry 14) is DENIED AS MOOT, and that this action be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED. IT IS substantial FURTHER issue ORDERED for AND appeal ADJUDGED concerning that, the finding denial no of a constitutional right affecting the conviction, nor a debatable procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is denied. /s/ L. Patrick Auld L. Patrick Auld United States Magistrate Judge September 28, 2010 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.