MacKenzie v. Cunningham

MacKenzie v. Cunningham

Petitioner:	John MacKenzie
Respondent:	Raymond Cunningham
Case Number:	7:2012cv02452
Filed:	April 2, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	White Plains Office
County:	Sullivan
Presiding Judge:	Paul E. Davison
Presiding Judge:	Edgardo Ramos
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
December 10, 2014	Filing 57 OPINION & ORDER re: 52 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by John MacKenzie. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Docket. No. 52) fails to present any controlling decisions or data the Court overlooked. In his motion for reconsiderati on, Petitioner merely speculates whether the Court considered all of his submissions, including exhibits, in reaching its conclusion. The Court's prior ruling dismissing petitioner's writ was reached after careful consideration of the relev ant law and facts. In light of the prevailing principle that a motion for reconsideration should not be used as a vehicle to make repetitive arguments on issues that have been fully considered, the Court adheres to its prior decision. Accordingly, Pe titioner's motion for reconsideration must be denied. The clerk of the court is respectfully requested to terminate this motion (Docket No. 52). This constitutes the court's decision and order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 12/10/2014) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mml)
September 23, 2014	Filing 50 MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER for 39 Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated above, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is, therefore, DENIED. The Clerk of Court is dir ected to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. As Petitioner 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)(2); Love v. McCray, 413 F.3 d 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, 259-60 (2d Cir. 1997). The Court certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any ap peal 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, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 9/23/2014) (mml)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 10, 2014

Filing 57 OPINION & ORDER re: 52 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by John MacKenzie. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Docket. No. 52) fails to present any controlling decisions or data the Court overlooked. In his motion for reconsiderati on, Petitioner merely speculates whether the Court considered all of his submissions, including exhibits, in reaching its conclusion. The Court's prior ruling dismissing petitioner's writ was reached after careful consideration of the relev ant law and facts. In light of the prevailing principle that a motion for reconsideration should not be used as a vehicle to make repetitive arguments on issues that have been fully considered, the Court adheres to its prior decision. Accordingly, Pe titioner's motion for reconsideration must be denied. The clerk of the court is respectfully requested to terminate this motion (Docket No. 52). This constitutes the court's decision and order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 12/10/2014) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mml)

September 23, 2014

Filing 50 MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER for 39 Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated above, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is, therefore, DENIED. The Clerk of Court is dir ected to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. As Petitioner 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)(2); Love v. McCray, 413 F.3 d 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, 259-60 (2d Cir. 1997). The Court certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any ap peal 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, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 9/23/2014) (mml)

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: MacKenzie v. Cunningham
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Raymond Cunningham
Represented By:	Ashlyn Hope Dannelly
Represented By:	Alyson Joy Gill
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 ]
Petitioner: John MacKenzie
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?