Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 26, 2024

Williams v. Lamanna

Docket
7:18-cv-02172-KMK-JCM
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Williams v. Lamanna, the court adopted the earlier recommendation, dismissed the petition, and closed the case.

Who this affects

Michael Williams’s petition was dismissed, the court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and the case was closed. Jaime Lamanna was the respondent.

What happened

In Williams v. Lamanna, Michael Williams challenged Jaime Lamanna through a petition. The judgment does not explain the petition’s underlying claims or the reasons for dismissal.

The court adopted in full an October 11, 2023 R&R and dismissed the petition. It also denied a certificate of appealability and stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The court closed the case on March 26, 2024. No judge is named in the judgment; Ruby J. Krajick signed it as Clerk of Court.

The detailed version

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

Case
Williams v. Lamanna · No. 7:18-cv-02172-KMK-JCM
Date
Mar. 26, 2024

Background

Michael Williams was the petitioner, and Jaime Lamanna was the respondent. The judgment does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or the parties’ arguments.

Ruling

The court stated that, for the reasons given in its March 25, 2024 Order, the October 11, 2023 R&R was adopted in its entirety. The court ordered that the petition be dismissed.

The court also ruled that Williams had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is a document required for certain appeals in this type of case. The court further certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith.

Disposition

The case was closed. The judgment is dated March 26, 2024, and was signed by Ruby J. Krajick as Clerk of Court; the judgment does not name the deciding judge.

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.