From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Redfear v. Smith

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Mar 29, 2011
1:08CV904 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2011)

Opinion

1:08CV904.

March 29, 2011


ORDER


On October 12, 2010, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. (Docket Entries 38 39.) Plaintiff filed objections to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636. (Docket Entry 41.)

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's objections de novo and finds they do not change the substance of the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation which is affirmed and adopted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Hassan's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 18) and Defendant Smith's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 25) are granted, that this action is dismissed, and that, 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 denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent they constitute motions and not responses to Defendants' summary judgment motions, Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 28) and Motion for Dismissal of Defendant [sic] Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 30) are denied.


Summaries of

Redfear v. Smith

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Mar 29, 2011
1:08CV904 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2011)
Case details for

Redfear v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:EMORY S. REDFEAR, Plaintiff, v. LEWIS SMITH and SAMI HASSAN, Defendants

Court:United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina

Date published: Mar 29, 2011

Citations

1:08CV904 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2011)

Citing Cases

Nazarova v. Duke Univ.

Rule 15(d) motions are to be evaluated under the same standards used to evaluate motions to amend pleadings…