Summary
holding that the petitioner's claim of "denial of due process and abuse of discretion" by the trial court in denying the petitioner's motion to withdraw her guilty plea without a hearing did not state a "cognizable ground for habeas relief
Summary of this case from Reynolds v. WardenOpinion
CASE NO. 1:14 CV 00100
06-01-2015
SUSAN ALT, Petitioner v. LaSHANN EPPINGER, Warden, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THE PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR HABEAS RELIEF
Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2), the instant petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr., for preparation of a report and recommendation ("R&R"). On 13 April 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending that the petition be dismissed, because the petitioner's first claim for relief is non-cognizable on federal habeas review and her remaining claims are procedurally defaulted. The petitioner's timely objections to the magistrate judge's R&R are now before the Court.
This Court, having reviewed de novo those portions of the R&R to which the petitioner specifically objects, pursuant to Local Rule 72.3(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), concludes that the petitioner's objections are without merit and that the R&R is without error. The R&R is accordingly adopted in its entirety. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the R&R, Ms. Alt's Petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that no basis exists upon which to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: 1 June 2015