LATTIMER
v.
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the motion to dismiss the petition.
Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a § 2254 petition. The Respondent moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were unexhausted and procedurally defaulted…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certificate Of Appealability cases and more on FLexlaw
Jereme Lattimer, a state prisoner, has filed a § 2254 petition. The Secretary moved to dismiss, contending the claims are unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. ECF No. 6. The magistrate judge has issued a report and recommendation, concluding that dismissal is appropriate. ECF No. 8. There have been no objections. (The magistrate judge granted Lattimer’s request for an extension on the objection deadline, ECF No. 10, but the extended deadline has now passed.) Having fully considered the matter, I agree with the magistrate judge and conclude the petition cannot succeed. I also find no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, so I deny a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.SC. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000). It is now ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) is adopted and incorporated into this order. 2. The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. 3. The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “The § 2254 petition is dismissed.”
4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
5. The clerk will close the file.
SO ORDERED on August 31, 2021.
s/ Allen Winsor United States District Judge