Thompson v. Yelich

Thompson v. Yelich

Case Number:	1:2009cv05039
Filed:	November 6, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Habeas Corpus (General) Office
Presiding Judge:	Kiyo A. Matsumoto
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:	28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

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
November 26, 2012	Filing 15 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Bloom's well-reasoned and thorough recommendation, the record before the court, and the relevant case law, the court finds that there is no clear error in the Report and Recommendation and hereby affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the court. Accordingly, petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is denied. Because petit ioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any constitutional right, the court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Lozada v. United States, 107 F.3d 1011, 1017 (2d Cir. 1997) (abrogated on othe r grounds); Richardson v. Greene, 497 F.3d 212, 217 (2d. Cir. 2007) (discussing the standard for issuing a certificate of appealability). Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), that any appeal from this judgment d enying the petition would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to dismiss the petition, enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close this case. Respondent is directed to serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order on petitioner and to file proof of service via ECF by November 27, 2012. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 11/26/2012. (Beauchamp, Peter)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 26, 2012

Filing 15 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Bloom's well-reasoned and thorough recommendation, the record before the court, and the relevant case law, the court finds that there is no clear error in the Report and Recommendation and hereby affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the court. Accordingly, petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is denied. Because petit ioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any constitutional right, the court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Lozada v. United States, 107 F.3d 1011, 1017 (2d Cir. 1997) (abrogated on othe r grounds); Richardson v. Greene, 497 F.3d 212, 217 (2d. Cir. 2007) (discussing the standard for issuing a certificate of appealability). Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), that any appeal from this judgment d enying the petition would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to dismiss the petition, enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close this case. Respondent is directed to serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order on petitioner and to file proof of service via ECF by November 27, 2012. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 11/26/2012. (Beauchamp, Peter)

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 Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Thompson v. Yelich
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| 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?