Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 12, 2024

McTiernan v. Tedford

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:21-cv-01543
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In McTiernan v. Tedford, Judge Cronan adopted the recommendation, denied McTiernan’s habeas petition, ruled that no appeal certificate would issue, and closed the case.

Who this affects

McTiernan’s habeas petition was denied; Jeffrey Tedford prevailed as the respondent, and the case was closed.

What happened

In McTiernan v. Tedford, the court adopted a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in full and denied McTiernan’s petition challenging custody through a federal habeas case.

The court ruled that McTiernan had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it said a certificate of appealability would not issue. The judgment favored Respondent Jeffrey Tedford, and the case was closed.

Judge John Cronan was the assigned judge. The judgment was entered on August 12, 2024, based on the court’s order dated the same day.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
McTiernan v. Tedford · No. 1:21-cv-01543
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Aug. 12, 2024

Background

McTiernan filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a proceeding asking a federal court to review the legality of custody, against Jeffrey Tedford, identified in the judgment as superintendent of Adirondack Correctional Facility. The judgment states that the court’s reasons were provided in a separate order dated August 12, 2024.

Ruling

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied McTiernan’s habeas petition. The judgment does not describe the underlying habeas claims or explain whether the denial rested on the merits or on a procedural ground.

The court also ruled that McTiernan had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. Accordingly, it stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue. Judgment was entered in favor of Tedford, and the case was closed.

Disposition

The petition was denied. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, entered judgment for the respondent, and closed the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.