Rodriguez v. Miller

Rodriguez v. Miller

Petitioner:	Alvin J. Rodriguez
Respondent:	Christopher Miller
Case Number:	1:2015cv01087
Filed:	February 13, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Washington
Presiding Judge:	Unassigned
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
September 28, 2018	Filing 24 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER for 23 Report and Recommendations, 2 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. The Clerk is in structed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. The Clerk is further instructed to mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to petitioner at the address on the docket. As petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the d enial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 9/28/2018) (anc) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

Date Filed

Document Text

September 28, 2018

Filing 24 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER for 23 Report and Recommendations, 2 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. The Clerk is in structed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. The Clerk is further instructed to mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to petitioner at the address on the docket. As petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the d enial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 9/28/2018) (anc) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

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: Rodriguez v. Miller
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Alvin J. Rodriguez
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: Christopher Miller
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?