Summary
rejecting the § 2254 petitioner's argument that the AEDPA's exhaustion requirement is unconstitutional and stating that "the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the exhaustion doctrine"
Summary of this case from Munt v. GrandlienardOpinion
CASE NO. CV 13-7165-DOC (PJW)
12-02-2014
ANDREW F. POTVIN, Petitioner, v. JERRY POWERS, et al., Respondents.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINAL REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Final Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Further, for the reasons stated in the Final Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). DATED: December 2, 2014
/s/_________
DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE