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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

06-263 - Foulks v. Carlton

Download Files


Document in Context
06-263 - Foulks v. Carlton
July 16, 2008
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Petitioner is entitled to no relief with respect to his claims. Therefore, respondents motion for judgment as a matter of law will be GRANTED and the petition will be DISMISSED. Furthermore, his motion for appointment of counsel will also be DENIED. [Doc. 20]. The Court now finds that reasonable jurists could not disagree with the resolution of these claims and could not conclude that they are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Accordingly, the Court will DENY issuance of a COA. 28 U.S.C. ยง 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A separate order will enter. C/M to Pro Se Petitioner.Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 7/16/2008. (FMM, )