UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
March 30, 2007
FRANK J. MINIGAN, JR., PETITIONER,
EDWARD R. DONNELLY, ET AL., RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Richard J. Arcara Chief Judge United States District Court
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On January 18, 2001, plaintiff filed a motion for a writ of habeas corpus. On February 16, 2007, Magistrate Judge Bianchini filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied.
Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on March 29, 2007.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and after reviewing the submissions, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Bianchini's Report and Recommendation, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to take all steps necessary to close the case.
The Court finds that petit ioner has f ailed t o make a subst ant ial show ing of t he denial of a const it ut ional right and t heref ore denies his mot ion f or a cert if icat e of appealabilit y. 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 2 5 3 (c)(2 ).
The Court cert if ies, pursuant t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 9 1 5 (a)(3 ), t hat any appeal from this judgment w ould not be t aken in good f ait h, and t heref ore denies leave t o appeal in f orm a pauperis. Furt her request s t o proceed on appeal in f orm a pauperis must be f iled w it h t he Unit ed St at es Court of A ppeals for t he Second Circuit in accordance w it h t he requirement s of Rule 2 4 of t he Federal Rules of A ppellat e Procedure.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.