Barron v. Pallito et al

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ; Petitioner Barron's remaining claims are Dismissed and 4 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 is Denied. A certificate of appealability is DENIED because the petitioner fa iled to make a substantial showing of denial of a federal right. It is further certified that any appeal taken in forma pauperis would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) Signed by District Judge J. Garvan Murtha on 1/14/2014. (wjf) Tex clarified on 1/15/2014 (law).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
DAVID BARRON,
Petitioner,
v.
ANDREW PALLITO and VERMONT
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

File No. 1:12-cv-92-jgm-jmc

ORDER
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was filed
December 13, 2013. (Doc. 17.) After de novo review and absent objection, the Report
and Recommendation is AFFIRMED, APPROVED and ADOPTED. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
Barron’s remaining claims are DISMISSED, and his Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §
2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 4) is DENIED.
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b), the Court DENIES petitioner a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) because the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of a
denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court rejects the
petition on its merits because the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that reasonable
jurists would find the Court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or
wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542
(2000).

It is further certified that any appeal taken in forma pauperis from this Order
would not be taken in good faith because such an appeal would be frivolous. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Brattleboro, in the District of Vermont, this 14th day of January, 2014.

/s/ J. Garvan Murtha
Honorable J. Garvan Murtha
United States District Judge

2