Summary
rejecting claims alleging privacy violations, self-incrimination, due-process violations, and cruel and unusual punishment
Summary of this case from Hudson v. MinnesotaOpinion
Civil File No. 12-0707 (MJD/AJB)
06-26-2013
KEVIN HERMAN LARSON, Petitioner, v. THOMAS ROY, Respondent.
ORDER ON REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
The above-entitled matter came before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the United States Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan dated April 1, 2013. Petitioner filed an objection to that Report and Recommendation in the time period permitted.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Chief Magistrate Judge Boylan filed April 1, 2013.
The above-entitled matter is also before the Court upon Petitioner's motion for the Court to accept "late evidence." [Docket No. 21] The Court grants Petitioner's motion and considered this evidence during its de novo review of the record.
The above-entitled matter is also before the Court upon Petitioner's request for an appointment of an attorney. [Docket No. 18] Because the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court denies Petitioner's request for an appointment of an attorney as moot.
Based upon the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus, [Doc. No. 1], is DENIED;LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
2. Petitioner's motion for the Court to accept late evidence [Doc. No. 21], is GRANTED;
3. Petitioner's motion for an appointment of an attorney [Doc. No. 18] is DENIED as moot; and
4. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
________________
Michael J. Davis
Chief Judge
United States District Court