Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-635 - Hudson v. Ryan et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-635 - Hudson v. Ryan et al
September 27, 2016
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) be DENIED; that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be granted because reasonable jurists could find the ruling debatable. This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the NinthCircuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. The parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bridget S Bade on 9/27/2016. (REK)
April 13, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART AND MODIFYING IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 18 - Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Doc. 1), is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this action and enter judgment accordingly. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and reasonable jurists would not find this assessment debatable or wrong. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 4/13/17. (SLQ)