Poirier v. Graham

Poirier v. Graham

Petitioner:	Greg Poirier
Respondent:	Harold Graham
Case Number:	1:2017cv01457
Filed:	February 27, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge:	Katharine H. Parker
Presiding Judge:	Laura Taylor Swain
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
October 25, 2018	Filing 41 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for 29 Report and Recommendation. Because Petitioner raises only general or conclusory objections which, at most, amount to his disagreement with Judge Parker's conclusions, the Court reviews the Rep ort for clear error and finds no such error in Judge Parker's thorough and well-reasoned Report. The Court thus adopts the Report in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability should not be issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The Court also certifies 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, 444 (1962). This Order resolves docket entry no. 2. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 10/25/2018) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ama) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

Date Filed

Document Text

October 25, 2018

Filing 41 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for 29 Report and Recommendation. Because Petitioner raises only general or conclusory objections which, at most, amount to his disagreement with Judge Parker's conclusions, the Court reviews the Rep ort for clear error and finds no such error in Judge Parker's thorough and well-reasoned Report. The Court thus adopts the Report in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability should not be issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The Court also certifies 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, 444 (1962). This Order resolves docket entry no. 2. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 10/25/2018) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ama) 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: Poirier v. Graham
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Greg Poirier
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: Harold Graham
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?