Earl v. Graham
Petitioner: Christopher Earl
Respondent: H. Graham
Case Number: 1:2017cv08814
Filed: November 13, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: White Plains Office
Presiding Judge: Judith C. McCarthy
Presiding Judge: Nelson Stephen Roman
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 17, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 20 CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 19 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations. in favor of H. Graham against Christopher Earl. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated March 16, 2021, th e Court adopts MJ McCarthy's R & R in its entirety. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is therefore DENIED. As Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not i ssue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005); Lozada v. United States, 107 F.3d 1011, 1017 (2d Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Perez, 129 F.3d 225, 25960 (2d Cir. 1997). The Court certifies pursuant to 18 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 purposes of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962); accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 3/17/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal) (dt)
March 16, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 18 Report and Recommendations, For the reasons given, the Court adopts MJ McCarthy's R & R in its entirety. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is therefore DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly, terminate the case, and send a copy of this Order to Petitioner at his last known address. As Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appeala bility will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005); Lozada v. United States, 107 F.3d 1011, 1017 (2d Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Perez, 129 F.3d 225, 25960 (2d Ci r. 1997). The Court certifies pursuant to 18 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 purposes of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). SO ORDERED., (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 3/16/2021) (rj) 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: Earl 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: Christopher Earl
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: H. 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?