Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

GARRY MURRAY, Petitioner, v. TIMOTHY MURRAY, Superintendent, Respondent.

ORDER

LAWRENCE KAHN, District Judge

On January 9, 2004, Petitioner Garry Murray ("Murray" or "Petitioner") filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Court. Dkt. No. 1. On June 14, 2007, Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece filed a Report-Recommendation, recommending that the Petition be denied. Docket No. 40. The Report-Recommendation was approved, and the Petition Dismissed, by a Decision and Order of this Court filed September 11, 2007. Docket No. 44. Murray has appealed that dismissal to the Second Circuit and now seeks a Certificate of Appealability ("COA"). Docket No. 52. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) provides in relevant part that:

Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from —
(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or
(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

A COA may only be issued "if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). After reviewing the relevant portions of the file in this action, and for the reasons set forth in the Court's Decision and Order and Magistrate Judge Treece's Report-Recommendation, the Court finds that Murray has failed to make such a showing herein. Therefore, the Court denies his request.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Appealability (Docket No. 52) is denied, and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MURRAY v. MURRAY
(Jan 2, 2008)