Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

EDWARDS v. KERESTES, 15-3573. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20160115u32 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 15, 2016
Summary: ORDER JAN E. DuBOIS , District Judge . AND NOW , this 14th day of January, 2016, upon consideration of Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by pro se petitioner, Everett Edwards, the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation of United States Chief Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa dated December 21, 2015, and Objection to the Report and Recommendation filed by pro se petitioner, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. The Repor
More

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of January, 2016, upon consideration of Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by pro se petitioner, Everett Edwards, the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation of United States Chief Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa dated December 21, 2015, and Objection to the Report and Recommendation filed by pro se petitioner, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation of United States Chief Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa dated December 21, 2015, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. The Objection to the Report and Recommendation filed by pro se petitioner is OVERRULED on the ground that all of the issues raised in the Objection were addressed in the Report and Recommendation which the Court approved and adopted. The objections are OVERRULED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation;

3. The Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by pro se petitioner is DENIED and DISMISSED without an evidentiary hearing; and,

4. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate (a) this Court's decision that the petition does not state a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, or (b) the propriety of this Court's procedural ruling(s) with respect to petitioner's claim(s). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer