From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pea v. Cain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Mar 30, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-83-JJB-EWD (M.D. La. Mar. 30, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-83-JJB-EWD

03-30-2017

DONALD PEA (#457171) v. N. BURL CAIN, ET AL.


RULING

The court has carefully considered the petition, the record, the law applicable to this action, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes dated February 28, 2017 (doc. no. 17). The plaintiff filed an objection which merely restates his prior argument and has been duly considered.

The court hereby approves the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and adopts it as the court's opinion herein. Accordingly, the petitioner's application for habeas corpus is DENIED, with prejudice. Further, in the event that the petitioner seeks to pursue an appeal in this case, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 30th day of March, 2017.

/s/_________

JAMES J. BRADY, JUDGE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA


Summaries of

Pea v. Cain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Mar 30, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-83-JJB-EWD (M.D. La. Mar. 30, 2017)
Case details for

Pea v. Cain

Case Details

Full title:DONALD PEA (#457171) v. N. BURL CAIN, ET AL.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: Mar 30, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-83-JJB-EWD (M.D. La. Mar. 30, 2017)

Citing Cases

Lowe v. Mills

But even if the evidence was “wholly circumstantial,” Lowe possesses no federal constitutional right to a…

Chism v. Middlebrooks

Even if the evidence were “wholly circumstantial,” Chism possesses no federal constitutional right to a…