From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reeves v. Perdue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
May 23, 2014
9:11-CV-442 (N.D.N.Y. May. 23, 2014)

Opinion

9:11-CV-442

05-23-2014

BELTON REEVES, Petitioner, v. RUSSELL PERDUE, Warden, Respondent.

BELTON REEVES Petitioner, Pro Se Sandstone Federal Correctional Institution HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York Attorney for Respondent James M. Hanley Federal Building CHARLES E. ROBERTS, ESQ. Ass't United States Attorney


APPEARANCES: BELTON REEVES
Petitioner, Pro Se
Sandstone Federal Correctional Institution
HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN
United States Attorney for the

Northern District of New York
Attorney for Respondent
James M. Hanley Federal Building
OF COUNSEL: CHARLES E. ROBERTS, ESQ.
Ass't United States Attorney
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER

Petitioner Belton Reeves brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On May 6, 2014, the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, advised, by Report-Recommendation, that the petition be denied and no certificate of appealability be granted. No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed.

Based upon a careful review of entire file and the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Therefore, it is

ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED.

Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________

United States District Judge
Dated: May 23, 2014

Utica, New York.


Summaries of

Reeves v. Perdue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
May 23, 2014
9:11-CV-442 (N.D.N.Y. May. 23, 2014)
Case details for

Reeves v. Perdue

Case Details

Full title:BELTON REEVES, Petitioner, v. RUSSELL PERDUE, Warden, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: May 23, 2014

Citations

9:11-CV-442 (N.D.N.Y. May. 23, 2014)

Citing Cases

Stegemann v. Brook

“The [s]ome evidence standard has been held to be satisfied in cases where the hearing official relies almost…

State v. Malusky

It must have known that the statute is exclusive and that there are no offenses either misdemeanors or…