CHRISTIAN v. WASHINGTON

Filing 13

ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 3/4/2016; that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 10 ) is ADOPTED. FURTHER that Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 4 ) is GRANTED, that Petitio ner's Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1 ) is DENIED, that the Amended Petition (Doc. 8 ) is DISMISSED (as untimely) in part and DENIED (as redundant and mer itless) in part, 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. (Sheets, Jamie)

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

DARWIN V. CHRISTIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
OLIVER WASHINGTON,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15CV253-1

ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the
Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation filed on February 8, 2016,
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 for Summary Judgment (Doc.
4) be granted, that Petitioner’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1)
be denied, that the Amended Petition (Doc. 8) be dismissed (as
untimely) in part and denied (as redundant and meritless) in
part, and that judgment be entered against Petitioner in this
action without issuance of a certificate of appealability.

The

Recommendation was served on the parties to this action on
February 8, 2016 (Doc. 11). Petitioner timely filed 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 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 the Magistrate Judge=s
Recommendation (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that

Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 4) is GRANTED,
that Petitioner’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1) is DENIED,
that the Amended Petition (Doc. 8) is DISMISSED (as untimely) in
part and DENIED (as redundant and meritless) in part, 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

- 2 -

constitutional right affecting the conviction, nor a debatable
procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is not issued.
This the 4th day of March, 2016.

______________________________________
United States District Judge

- 3 -