Harris v. Hobbs
ORDER adopting 18 Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. Harris's 2 petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. The requested relief is denied. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 2/19/2015. (ks)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
PAUL HARRIS, ADC #154185
WENDY KELLEY, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction1
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted
by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe. No objections have been filed. After careful
consideration, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition
should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court’s findings in all
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2554 Cases in the
United States District Court, the Court must determine whether to issue a certificate of appealability
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). The
Court finds no issue on which Paul Harris has made a substantial showing of a denial of a
constitutional right. Thus, the certificate of appealability is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Harris’s petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Document #2. The requested relief is denied.
DATED this 19th day of February, 2015.
J. LEON HOLMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The petition named Ray Hobbs as the respondent. Mr. Hobbs retired on October 31, 2014,
and was replaced by Larry Norris as Interim Director. Wendy Kelley was appointed as Director on
January 13, 2015. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Ms. Kelley is automatically
substituted as the respondent in place of Mr. Hobbs.
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?