PEGRAM v. WHITENER
Filing
11
ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 09/14/2015 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4 ) is GRANTED, that Petitioner's Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 fo r Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) 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. (Garland, Leah)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ROBY LEE PEGRAM,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
KEITH WHITENER,
Respondent.
1:15CV96
ORDER
On August 6, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge=s
Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
(Docs. 8, 9.)
Petitioner timely
filed objections (Doc. 10) to the Recommendation.
This court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the
Recommendation to which objections were 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 Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 4) is GRANTED, that Petitioner’s Petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) 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.
This the 14th day of September, 2015.
_______________________________________
United States District Judge
- 2 -
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?