Opinion
Civil No. 10-2277 (DWF/JJK).
November 1, 2010
Christopher L. Manska, Pro Se, Petitioner.
Brian D. Simonson, Assistant St. Louis County Attorney, St. Louis County Attorney's Office; and Kimberly R. Parker and Matthew Frank, Assistant Attorney General, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, counsel for Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner Christopher L. Manska's ("Petitioner") self-styled objections to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes's Report and Recommendation dated July 12, 2010, insofar as it recommends that: (1) Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied; (2) Petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied; (3) Petitioner's "Motion For Release Pending Appeal," be denied; (4) this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the arguments and submissions of counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b). The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and precisely set forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference for purposes of Petitioner's objections.
Based upon the de novo review of the record and all of the arguments and submissions of the parties and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court hereby enters the following:
ORDER
1. Petitioner Christopher L. Manska's self-styled objections (Doc. No. [12]) to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes's Report and Recommendation dated July 12, 2010, are DENIED.
2. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes's Report and Recommendation dated July 12, 2010 (Doc. No. [8]), is ADOPTED.
3. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Doc. No. [1]), is DENIED.
4. Petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. No. [2]), is DENIED.
5. Petitioner's "Motion For Release Pending Appeal," (Doc. No. 6), is DENIED.
6. This action is summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: November 1, 2010