From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

LADD v. HOFMANN

United States District Court, D. Vermont
Jun 13, 2008
File No. 1:07-CV-176 (D. Vt. Jun. 13, 2008)

Opinion

File No. 1:07-CV-176.

June 13, 2008


ORDER


The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was filed April 14, 2008. (Paper 13). After de novo review and over objection, the Report and Recommendation is AFFIRMED, APPROVED and ADOPTED. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Petitioner's habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Papers 1 and 10) are DENIED and this case is DISMISSED.

Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 22(b), the Court DENIES petitioner a certificate of appealability ("COA") because the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In addition, because the petition has been dismissed on procedural grounds, the petitioner cannot be issued a COA due to his failure to demonstrate that "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000).

It is further certified that any appeal taken in forma pauperis from this Order would not be taken in good faith because such an appeal would be frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

LADD v. HOFMANN

United States District Court, D. Vermont
Jun 13, 2008
File No. 1:07-CV-176 (D. Vt. Jun. 13, 2008)
Case details for

LADD v. HOFMANN

Case Details

Full title:EUGENE F. LADD, Petitioner v. ROBERT HOFMANN, Commissioner, Vermont…

Court:United States District Court, D. Vermont

Date published: Jun 13, 2008

Citations

File No. 1:07-CV-176 (D. Vt. Jun. 13, 2008)

Citing Cases

Kolts v. Carlson

Because Petitioner did not timely appeal the PCR court's dismissal of his Brady claim to the Vermont Supreme…