From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bell v. U.S.

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Apr 29, 2008
9:08-CV-0215 (FJS/GHL) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2008)

Summary

dismissing habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 where the petitioner was not sentenced or incarcerated in the Northern District of New York

Summary of this case from Spencer v. McLean

Opinion

9:08-CV-0215 (FJS/GHL).

April 29, 2008

JAMES DALTON BELL, 26906-086, Petitioner Pro Se, USP Tucson, Tucson, Arizona.


ORDER


Currently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Lowe's April 3, 2008 Report-Recommendation to which the parties have filed no objections. Having reviewed that Report-Recommendation and the entire file in this matter, the Court hereby

ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George H. Lowe filed April 3, 2008 is ACCEPTED in its entirety, for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further

ORDERS that the Petition is DENIED and DISMISSED and the Court further ORDERS that no certificate of appealability should issue with respect to any of Petitioner's claims; and the Court hereby

ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Respondents and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Bell v. U.S.

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Apr 29, 2008
9:08-CV-0215 (FJS/GHL) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2008)

dismissing habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 where the petitioner was not sentenced or incarcerated in the Northern District of New York

Summary of this case from Spencer v. McLean

dismissing habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 where the petitioner was not sentenced or incarcerated in the Northern District of New York

Summary of this case from James v. Schult
Case details for

Bell v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:JAMES DALTON BELL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Apr 29, 2008

Citations

9:08-CV-0215 (FJS/GHL) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2008)

Citing Cases

Spencer v. McLean

For the reasons set forth above, this action is dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Minnette v. Time Warner,…

James v. Schult

Thus, the section 2255 savings clause does not apply here and this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain…