LARSEN v. STATE OF MAINE

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

RICHARD ALLEN LARSEN, III, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) 1:23-cv-00202-JDL ) STATE OF MAINE, et. al., ) ) Respondents. )

ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Richard Allen Larsen, III, moves under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2023) to dismiss criminal charges that have been filed against him by the State of Maine because his constitutional rights have allegedly been violated (ECF No. 1). United States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison filed his Recommended Decision on Larsen’s petition on May 17, 2023 (ECF No. 2), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2023) and Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.1 Neither party filed an objection to the Recommended Decision. The Magistrate Judge provided notice that a party’s failure to object would waive the right to de novo review and appeal. I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, together with the entire record. Notwithstanding Larsen’s failure to object, I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate

1 Because Larsen is a pretrial detainee and is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 governs his claims rather than 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 2023). See Graham v. Maine, 2:20-cv-00315-JDL, 2020 WL 6811492, at *2 (D. Me. Oct. 5, 2020) (noting that “28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the relevant statute for challenging the constitutionality of pretrial detention”). However, “the § 2254 rules specifically state that they may be applied by the district court to other habeas petitions.” Bramson v. Winn, 136 F. App’x 380, 382 (1st Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citing Rule 1(b) of the Rules Judge. I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 2) is hereby ACCEPTED, and the Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED. It is further ORDERED that no certificate of appealability should issue in the event the Petitioner files a notice of appeal because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2) (West 2023).

SO ORDERED. Dated this 26th day of June, 2023.

/s/ JON D. LEVY CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE