INMAN v. LANDRY

Filing 40

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 35 Report and Recommendations; denying 30 Motion for release ; denying 34 Motion for release. 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. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (MSH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Maine

FRANK INMAN
Petitioner
v.
SCOTT LANDRY,
Respondent

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:15-cv-00113-GZS

ORDER AFFIRMING THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on November 3, 2015, his
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 35). Petitioner filed his Objection to the Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 36) on November 16, 2015.
I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together
with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the
Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United
States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision, and determine
that no further proceeding is necessary.

1.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge
is hereby AFFIRMED.

2.

It is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Release (ECF No. 34) is
hereby DENIED.

3.

It is hereby ORDERED that a certificate of appealability 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_____________
U.S. District Judge
Dated this 2nd day of December, 2015.