Mannino v. Edge

E.D. Arkansas

Mannino v. Edge

DecidedAugust 30, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-00155

StatusUnknown

This text of Mannino v. Edge (Mannino v. Edge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mannino v. Edge, (E.D. Ark. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION GUY CHRISTOPHER MANNINO PETITIONER REG #21960-075 V. CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00155-JM-JTK C. Edge, Acting Warden RESPONDENT FCI Forrest City, AR’ ORDER The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations from United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney. After careful review of the findings and recommendations and the Petitioner’s motion for stay which the Court deems a timely objection, as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations should be, and are hereby, approved and adopted as this Court’s findings in all respects in their entirety. The motion for stay is denied. See United States v. Chappel, 208 F.3d 1069, 1069-70 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). Judgment shall be entered accordingly. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). Because the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability, it certifies that an appeal in forma pauperis would not be taken in good faith. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). SO ORDERED this 30th day of August, 2023. U M. Moody United States District Judge

' Because Mannino is incarcerated at FCI — Forrest City, Arkansas, the proper Respondent is “C, Edge, Acting Warden FCI — Forrest City, Arkansas.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (habeas petition must name “the person who has custody over [the petitioner] and by virtue of what claim or authority”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION GUY CHRISTOPHER MANNINO PETITIONER REG #21960-075 V. CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00155-JM-JTK C. Edge, Acting Warden RESPONDENT FCI Forrest City, AR’ ORDER The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations from United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney. After careful review of the findings and recommendations and the Petitioner’s motion for stay which the Court deems a timely objection, as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations should be, and are hereby, approved and adopted as this Court’s findings in all respects in their entirety. The motion for stay is denied. See United States v. Chappel, 208 F.3d 1069, 1069-70 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). Judgment shall be entered accordingly. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). Because the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability, it certifies that an appeal in forma pauperis would not be taken in good faith. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). SO ORDERED this 30th day of August, 2023. U M. Moody United States District Judge

' Because Mannino is incarcerated at FCI — Forrest City, Arkansas, the proper Respondent is “C, Edge, Acting Warden FCI — Forrest City, Arkansas.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (habeas petition must name “the person who has custody over [the petitioner] and by virtue of what claim or authority”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mannino v. Edge, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mannino-v-edge-ared-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack