From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilson v. Bauman

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
Jun 22, 2009
Case No. 2:09-cv-1 (W.D. Mich. Jun. 22, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 2:09-cv-1.

June 22, 2009


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Petitioner David Wilson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The habeas petition was referred to Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.1(d). The Magistrate Judge submitted his report and recommendation on June 2, 2009. [Doc. No. 16]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the habeas petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner Wilson has not timely filed an objection to the report and recommendation.

After reviewing the record, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). The Court concludes that habeas petition is without merit for the reasons expressed in the report and recommendation. The petition for writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 shall be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

If petitioner Wilson files a notice of appeal, it will be treated as an application for a certificate of appealability which shall be DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) and Fed.R.App.P. 22(b)(1) because the Court finds that he has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right.

A separate judgment will enter.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Wilson v. Bauman

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
Jun 22, 2009
Case No. 2:09-cv-1 (W.D. Mich. Jun. 22, 2009)
Case details for

Wilson v. Bauman

Case Details

Full title:DAVID WILSON, Petitioner, v. CATHERINE BAUMAN, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division

Date published: Jun 22, 2009

Citations

Case No. 2:09-cv-1 (W.D. Mich. Jun. 22, 2009)

Citing Cases

Hostetter v. Park

There is apparently no limit to it. See also Walsh v. Frank, 19 Ark. 270; Strong v. Grand Trunk Railway, 15…