Opinion
Civil Action No. 2:08CV59, Criminal Action No. 2:04CR30.
March 26, 2010
ORDER
It will be recalled that on October 28, 2009, Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull filed his Report and Recommendation, wherein the Petitioner was directed, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), to file with the Clerk of Court any written objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. On November 25, 2009, Petitioner filed his objections.
Upon examination of the report from the Magistrate Judge, it appears to the Court that Petitioner's motion, which was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, was properly considered by Magistrate Judge Kaull in his Report and Recommendation. Upon consideration of the Petitioner's objections, the Court finds that the Petitioner has not raised any issues that were not throughly considered and addressed by the Magistrate Judge in his Report and Recommendation. Moreover, the Court, upon an independent de novo consideration of all matters now before it, is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation accurately reflects the law applicable to the facts and circumstances before the Court in this action. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Kaull's Report and Recommendation be, and the same hereby is, accepted in whole and that this action be disposed of in accordance with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Petitioner's § 2255 Motion be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion For Leave For An Extension of Time To file Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 200) be, and then same hereby is, DENIED as moot. It is further
ORDERED that the above styled action be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED with prejudice and STRICKEN from the docket of this Court. It is further
ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and Section 2255 Cases, this Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003) (in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
Exhibit