Crosson v. Recktendald

Crosson v. Recktendald

Petitioner:	Jerome Crosson
Respondent:	M. Recktendald
Case Number:	1:2014cv01865
Filed:	March 10, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Orange
Presiding Judge:	Alison J. Nathan
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2241
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
February 18, 2015	Filing 20 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 19 Report and Recommendations. Because no party filed an objection to Judge Francis's Report, the Report is reviewed for clear error. Finding no clear error in Judge Francis's thorough and well-reasoned Report, it is adopted in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. See, e.g., Beller v. As true, No. 12 CV 5112 (VB), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79541, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2013). Therefore, Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 is DENIED. In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a federal right, and appellate review is therefore not warranted. See Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005). The Court also finds, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The Clerk of Court shall dismiss this petition and close this case. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/18/2015) (kgo)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 18, 2015

Filing 20 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 19 Report and Recommendations. Because no party filed an objection to Judge Francis's Report, the Report is reviewed for clear error. Finding no clear error in Judge Francis's thorough and well-reasoned Report, it is adopted in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. See, e.g., Beller v. As true, No. 12 CV 5112 (VB), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79541, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2013). Therefore, Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 is DENIED. In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a federal right, and appellate review is therefore not warranted. See Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005). The Court also finds, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The Clerk of Court shall dismiss this petition and close this case. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/18/2015) (kgo)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Crosson v. Recktendald
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Jerome Crosson
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: M. Recktendald
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?