Summary
explaining that because a sufficiency challenge is "necessarily a constitutional issue" under Satter, it is "exhausted even absent a specific reference to a federal constitutional guarantee"
Summary of this case from Hill v. MinnesotaOpinion
Civil File No. 09-733 JNE/AJB.
January 8, 2010
ORDER
Based upon the Report and Recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan, dated December 11, 2009, with all the files and records, and no objections having been filed to said Recommendation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted [Docket No. 12]; Pendleton's motion for miscellaneous relief is denied [Docket No. 16]; and the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody [Docket No. 1] is denied and dismissed with prejudice.