Ingram v. Santistevan

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

MOSES EARL INGRAM, Petitioner, v. Civ. No. 19-0749 MV/KK DEWAYNE SANTISTEVAN, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION THIS MATTER comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Kirtan Khalsa’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”) (Doc. 15), filed February 13, 2024. In the PFRD, Magistrate Judge Khalsa recommended denying Mr. Ingram’s pro se petition for federal relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissing it with prejudice. (/d. at 31.) Judge Khalsa notified the parties that they had 14 days from service of the PFRD to file any objections to the PFRD. (/d.) Neither party has filed objections to the PFRD, thereby waiving their right to review of the proposed disposition. See United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). Upon review of the record, I concur with Judge Khalsa’s findings and recommendations and hereby ADOPT the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Doc. 15). In addition, because Petitioner failed to make a substantial showing that he has been denied a constitutional right, the Court hereby DENIES a Certificate of Appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. IT IS SO ORDERED. ff fi’

MARTH{WV AZQUAZ, ~ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE