HUNTER v. JONES

Filing 32

ORDER adopting Chief Magistrate Judge's 25 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1 ) is DENIED. Petitioner's Motion to Expand the Record with Newly Discovered Evidence (ECF No. 24 ) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the discussion of Ground Two, Sub-claim A, supra. A certificate of appealability is DENIED Signed by SENIOR JUDGE LACEY A COLLIER on 6/7/2019. (MB)

Download PDF
Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION RICHARD LEE HUNTER, Petitioner, v. Case No.: 3:17cv483/LAC/EMT MARK S. INCH, Respondent. ____________________________/ ORDER This cause comes on for consideration upon the chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation dated February 25, 2019 (ECF No. 25). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of the timely filed objections. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections thereto, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. Page 2 of 3 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. 3. Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record with Newly Discovered Evidence (ECF No. 24) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the discussion of Ground Two, Sub-claim A, supra. 4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of June, 2019. s/L.A. Collier LACEY A. COLLIER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case No.: 3:17cv483/LAC/EMT Page 3 of 3 Case No.: 3:17cv483/LAC/EMT

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?