Gearhart v. Anderson
ORDER ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; petition dismissed. (Schroeppel, Kerry)
Gearhart v. Anderson
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION RAYMOND GEARHART, Petitioner, v. MARTY C. ANDERSON, Warden, United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action ) No. 10-3283-CV-S-RED-H ) ) ) ) )
ORDER AND JUDGMENT Pursuant to the governing law and in accordance with Local Rule 72.1 of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, the petition herein for a writ of habeas corpus was referred to the United States Magistrate for preliminary review under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The United States Magistrate has completed his preliminary review of the petition and has submitted to the undersigned a report and recommendation that the petition be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner has had a full and fair opportunity to challenge the Magistrate's recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and proposed action. Petitioner has failed to state or show any facts or legal principles that would create a genuine issue of material fact or warrant correction of the legal principles applied by the Magistrate. No further proceedings will therefore be required in this case. Therefore, after a de novo review of the report and recommendation and the files and records in this case, it is concluded that the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and proposed actions of the
Magistrate are correct and should be approved. It is therefore ORDERED that petitioner be, and he is hereby, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis; it is further ADJUDGED that the petition herein for a writ of habeas corpus be, and it is hereby, dismissed without prejudice.
/s/ Richard E. Dorr RICHARD E. DORR United States District Judge
December 13, 2010
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?