HUNT v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

Filing 5

ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 04/11/2018, that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 2 ) is ADOPTED. FURTHER that Petitioner's "Rule 60(b)" motion (Doc. 1 ) is construed as an attempt by Petitioner to f ile a second or successive § 2254 action and that this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to obtain certification from the Fourth Circuit as required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and Fourth Circuit Local Rule 22(d). A Judgmen t 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. (Taylor, Abby)

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

MICHAEL HARRISON HUNT, JR.
Petitioner,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:18CV207

ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the
Recommendation and Order (ARecommendation@) filed on March 16,
2018, by the Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b). (Doc. 2.) In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that Petitioner’s “Rule 60(b)” motion (Doc. 1) be
construed as an attempt by Petitioner to file a second or
successive § 2254 action, and that this action be dismissed due
to Petitioner’s failure to obtain certification from the Fourth
Circuit as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244 and Fourth Circuit Local
Rule 22(d). The Recommendation was served on the parties to this
action on March 16, 2018. (Doc. 3.) Petitioner filed timely
objections (Doc. 4) 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. 2) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
Petitioner’s “Rule 60(b)” motion (Doc. 1) is construed as an
attempt by Petitioner to file a second or successive § 2254
action and that this action is dismissed without prejudice for
failure to obtain certification from the Fourth Circuit as
required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and Fourth Circuit Local Rule
22(d). 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

- 2 -

affecting the conviction, nor a debatable procedural ruling, a
certificate of appealability is not issued.
This the 11th day of April, 2018.

___________________________________
United States District Judge

- 3 -