Brims v. Collado
- Paul Davison
- 7:18-cv-06973
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Brims v. Collado, the court adopted an earlier recommendation and dismissed Brims’s habeas petition with prejudice; no judge is identified in this judgment.
Brims’s habeas petition was dismissed with prejudice; Collado received judgment in his favor, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Brims v. Collado, the court reviewed the remaining portions of Judge Davison’s report and recommendation and found no error. The judgment does not explain the underlying grounds for the recommendation.
The court adopted the recommendation’s outcome and dismissed Brims’s petition challenging his custody through a habeas case with prejudice. It also refused to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and certified that an appeal could not be taken without paying fees because it would not be pursued in good faith.
The court entered judgment for Collado and closed the case. The judgment was entered on October 12, 2022; no district judge is identified in the judgment.
The detailed version
- Brims v. Collado · No. 7:18-cv-06973
- Paul Davison
- Oct. 12, 2022
Action Before the Court
The judgment states that the court conducted a thorough review of the remaining portions of Judge Davison’s report and recommendation and found no error, “clear or otherwise.” The opinion text provided does not describe the report and recommendation’s underlying reasoning.
Ruling
The court adopted the outcome of Judge Davison’s report and recommendation. It dismissed Brims’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus with prejudice, meaning the dismissal bars refiling the same petition. The court entered judgment in favor of Collado and closed the case.
Appeal-Related Rulings
The court ruled that Brims had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied and therefore did not issue a Certificate of Appealability, which is a document required for certain federal habeas appeals. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the judgment on the merits could not be taken in good faith, meaning the appeal could not proceed without payment of fees under the applicable standard.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.