From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garbutt v. Conway

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Aug 15, 2008
05 Civ. 9898 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2008)

Opinion

05 Civ. 9898 (SHS).

August 15, 2008


ORDER


In a Report and Recommendation dated September 11, 2006, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis recommended that this petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. Afer a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Francis' Report and Recommendation dated September 11, 2006, petitioner's objections dated September 20, 2006, and petitioner's "Affidavit in Support of Addendum and Memorandum of Law, Requesting to Expand Upon Original Objections to the Magistrate's Report" dated May 23, 2008,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Magistrate Judge Francis' "Report and Recommendation" is adopted;

2. The petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dismissed;

3. As petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (as amended by the AEDPA);Middleton v. Attorneys Gen. of New York and Pennsylvania, 396 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Lucidore v. New York State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 111-13 (2d Cir. 2000); Soto v. United States, 185 F.3d 48, 51-53 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Perez, 129 F.3d 255, 259-60 (2d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 953 (1998); and

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) the Court certifies that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith.

SO ORDERED:


Summaries of

Garbutt v. Conway

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Aug 15, 2008
05 Civ. 9898 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2008)
Case details for

Garbutt v. Conway

Case Details

Full title:MILTON GARBUTT, Petitioner, v. JAMES T. CONWAY, Superintendent, Attica…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Aug 15, 2008

Citations

05 Civ. 9898 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2008)

Citing Cases

Garbutt v. Conway

The district court rejected the argument and denied the petition. Garbutt v. Conway, No. 05 Civ. 9898(SHS),…