Green v. Lee

Green v. Lee

Petitioner:	Michael Green
Respondent:	William Lee
Case Number:	1:2014cv06344
Filed:	July 30, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Dutchess
Presiding Judge:	Loretta A. Preska
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
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
March 31, 2016	Filing 20 OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: re 15 Adopting Report and Recommendation. For the foregoing reasons, the Report is adopted in full, and the Petition is DENIED. Since Green has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied f or the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court shall dismiss the Petition and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 3/31/2016) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ama)
January 8, 2016	Filing 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, I respectfully recommend that the petition be denied in all respects. In addition, because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, I also recommend that a certificate of appealability not be issued. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. To warrant the issuance of a certificate of appealability, "petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether... the petition should have b een resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Middleton v. Attorneys Gen., 396 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted , ellipsis in original); see also Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that there would be no difference of opinion among reasonable jurists that petitioner's federal rights w ere not violated. I further recommend that certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) not be issued because any appeal from this Report and Recommendation, or any Order entered thereon, would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Michael Green. Objections to R&R due by 1/25/2016. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 1/8/2016) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rjm)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 31, 2016

Filing 20 OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: re 15 Adopting Report and Recommendation. For the foregoing reasons, the Report is adopted in full, and the Petition is DENIED. Since Green has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied f or the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court shall dismiss the Petition and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 3/31/2016) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ama)

January 8, 2016

Filing 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, I respectfully recommend that the petition be denied in all respects. In addition, because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, I also recommend that a certificate of appealability not be issued. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. To warrant the issuance of a certificate of appealability, "petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether... the petition should have b een resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Middleton v. Attorneys Gen., 396 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted , ellipsis in original); see also Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that there would be no difference of opinion among reasonable jurists that petitioner's federal rights w ere not violated. I further recommend that certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) not be issued because any appeal from this Report and Recommendation, or any Order entered thereon, would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Michael Green. Objections to R&R due by 1/25/2016. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 1/8/2016) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rjm)

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: Green v. Lee
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Michael Green
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: William Lee
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?