DESUE v. INCH et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The filing at ECF No. 9 is DISMISSED as a second or successive habeas corpus application filed without first obtaining an order from the Eleventh Circuit authorizing the district court to consider it. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to close the file. Signed by JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 10/8/2019. (sdw)

Download PDF
Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION MICHAEL C. DESUE, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 5:19cv237-MCR-HTC STATE OF FLORIDA, SECRETARY MR. MARK INCH OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RECORDS CUSTODIAN LINDA SANTANA, Respondents. _________________________________/ ORDER This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation dated September 9, 2019. ECF No. 10. 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 any timely filed objections. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed objections thereto, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Page 2 of 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 10, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order. 2. The filing at ECF No. 9 is DISMISSED as a second or successive habeas corpus application filed without first obtaining an order from the Eleventh Circuit authorizing the district court to consider it. 3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. 4 The Clerk is directed to close the file. DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of October 2019. s/ M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case No. 5:19cv237-MCR-HTC

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?