Opinion
Civil Action 20-1916-KSM
08-14-2024
NUTTA VERDIER, Petitioner, v. TOM McGINLEY, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
KAREN SPENCER MARSTON, J.
AND NOW this 14th day of August, 2024, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Lynne A. Sitarski (Doc. No. 8), Petitioner's Objections to the R&R (Doc. No. 9), and the Amended R&R of Judge Sitarski (the “Amended R&R”) (Doc. No. 45), it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The Amended R&R is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.
Because jurists of reason would not debate the procedural or substantive dispositions of Petitioner's claims, no certificate of appealability should be granted. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.... When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, 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.”).
4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.