INMAN v. LANDRY

Filing 26

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 23 Report and Recommendations. No Certificate of Appealability should issue because there is no substantial issue that could be presented on appeal. See Fed.R.App.P.22 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Proceedings Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 or Section 2255. See also First Circuit Local Rule 22.0.; granting 25 Motion to Dismiss; denying in part and dismissing in part 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
FRANK INMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT LANDRY,
Superintendent, Maine Correctional
Center,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:15-cv-00113-GZS

)
)
)
)

ORDER AFFIRMING THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
No objections having been filed to the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision
(Docket No. 23) filed June 25, 2012, the Recommended Decision is AFFIRMED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that in regard to Plaintiff’s Petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 for Writ of Habeus Corpus, it is DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part.
1. With respect to the “mixed” claims set forth in Ground One (ineffective assistance
of counsel) and Ground Two (prosecutorial misconduct), the Magistrate Judge
recommended that the Court reserve ruling on these grounds pending the
defendant’s decision on proceeding on one or both grounds. I affirm the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. On July 8th, 2015, the defendant, prior to my
action on the recommended decision, elected to proceed only on Ground Two
(Docket No. 25), the issue of prosecutorial misconduct. Thus the Court will,
pursuant to the recommended decision, establish a schedule to address the issues
contained in Ground Two.

2. With respect to Grounds Three and Four of the Petition, the Court finds that an
evidentiary hearing is not warranted under Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases and DISMISSES Grounds Three and Four with prejudice.
3. It is hereby ORDERED that with respect to the partial dismissal contained in this
Order a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 cases is DENIED because there is no substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2).

_/s/ George Z. Singal
__
United States District Judge
Dated this 4th day of August, 2015.