Moss v. Hobbs
ORDER ADOPTING 9 Report and Recommendations in their entirety; therefore, this petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice; judgment will be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 6/9/11. (vjt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
JOHN THOMAS MOSS
CASE NO. 5:10cv00360 BSM
RAY HOBBS, Director of the
Arkansas Department of Correction
The proposed findings and recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate
Judge H. David Young and the filed objections have been reviewed. After carefully
considering these documents and making a de novo review of the record, it is concluded that
the proposed findings and recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and
adopted in their entirety in all respects. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
In his response petitioner John Thomas Moss (“Moss”) acknowledges that he must
first seek permission from the Eighth Circuit to file a second or successive petition. He
requests that this court grant him permission to seek that authorization. Permission from this
court is not required. To obtain authorization to file a second or successive petition, Moss
must take his request directly to the Eighth Circuit.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases
in the United States District Court, it must be determined whether to issue a certificate of
appelability in the final order. In § 2254 cases, a certificate of appealability may issue only
if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). There is no issue on which petitioner has made a substantial
showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Thus, the certificate of appealability is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of June, 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?