WARREN v. YOUNG

Filing 13

ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR. on 6/3/2014, that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 10 ) is ADOPTED. FURTHER, that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5 ) is GRANTED, that the habeas cor pus petition (Doc. 2 ) is DENIED, and that this action is DISMISSED. A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order. Finding no substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional right affecting the conviction, nor a debatable procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is not issued. (Lloyd, Donna)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SEAN DEREK WARREN,
Petitioner,
v.
FRANK L. PERRY,1
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13CV72

ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the
Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation (ARecommendation@) filed on
March 26, 2014, by the Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b).

(Doc. 10.)

In the Recommendation, the

Magistrate Judge recommends that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 5) be granted, that the Petition (Doc. 2) be dismissed,
and that this action be dismissed.

The Recommendation was

served on the parties to this action on March 27, 2014. (Doc.

Frank L. Perry currently serves as Secretary of the North
Carolina Department of Public Safety (which encompasses the
Division of Adult Correction). See https://www.ncdps.gov
(search for Secretary Frank L. Perry) (last performed May 30,
2014). By operation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d)
(applicable to this proceeding pursuant to Rule 12 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases) and consistent with Rule 2(a) of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the caption now properly
reflects Secretary Perry as Respondent.
1

11.)

Petitioner filed timely objections (Doc. 12) to the

Recommendation.
This court is required to Amake a de novo determination of
those portions of the [Magistrate Judge=s] report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.@
28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1).

This court Amay accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the [M]agistrate [J]udge. . . . [O]r recommit the matter
to the [M]agistrate [J]udge with instructions.@

Id.

This court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the
Recommendation to which objection was made and has made a
de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate
Judge=s Recommendation.

This court therefore adopts the

Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge=s
Recommendation (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED, that the
habeas corpus petition (Doc. 2) is DENIED, and that this action
is DISMISSED.

A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered

contemporaneously with this Order.

Finding no substantial issue

for appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional right
affecting the conviction, nor a debatable procedural ruling, a
certificate of appealability is not issued.
- 2 -

This the 3rd day of June, 2014.

_______________________________________
United States District Judge

- 3 -