FOXWORTH v. CLAY

Filing 17

ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 07/25/2017 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, that Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 9 ) is GRANTED, the Petition (ECF No. 2 ) is DENIED, and Judgment be entered dis missing this action. 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)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA TIMOTHY ALLEN FOXWORTH, Petitioner, v. HARVEY CLAY, Superintendent, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:16CV1266 ORDER The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed with the court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b) and, on June 12, 2017, was served on the parties in this action. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) Petitioner objected to the Recommendation. (ECF No. 17.) The court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the Magistrate Judge=s Recommendation to which objection was made and has made a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge=s Recommendation. The court therefore adopts the Magistrate Judge=s Recommendation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent=s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED, the Petition (ECF No. 2) is DENIED, and Judgment be entered dismissing this action. 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 25th day of July, 2017. /s/ Loretta C. Biggs 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?