Harris v. Ferguson, 17-cv-01718. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20191105812
Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 31, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 31, 2019
Summary: ORDER GERALD AUSTIN McHUGH , District Judge . AND NOW this 31 st day of October, 2019, upon careful and independent consideration of Tyrirk Harris' addendum-supplement to his petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 31), the Commonwealth's response in opposition (Doc. No. 41), the petitioner's reply (Doc. No. 46) and the Supplemental Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret, Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 53), and the Commonwealth's Response (Doc. No. 54
Summary: ORDER GERALD AUSTIN McHUGH , District Judge . AND NOW this 31 st day of October, 2019, upon careful and independent consideration of Tyrirk Harris' addendum-supplement to his petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 31), the Commonwealth's response in opposition (Doc. No. 41), the petitioner's reply (Doc. No. 46) and the Supplemental Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret, Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 53), and the Commonwealth's Response (Doc. No. 54)..
More
ORDER
GERALD AUSTIN McHUGH, District Judge.
AND NOW this 31st day of October, 2019, upon careful and independent consideration of Tyrirk Harris' addendum-supplement to his petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 31), the Commonwealth's response in opposition (Doc. No. 41), the petitioner's reply (Doc. No. 46) and the Supplemental Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret, Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 53), and the Commonwealth's Response (Doc. No. 54), it is ORDERED that:
1. The objections are overruled;
2. The Supplemental Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
3. Harris' Addendum/Supplement to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice by separate Judgment, filed contemporaneously with this Order. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 12;
4. No certificate of appealability shall issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) because "the applicant has [not] made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right[,]" under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), since he has not demonstrated that "reasonable jurists" would find my "assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 262-63 (3d Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012); and,
5. The Clerk of Court shall mark this file closed.
Source: Leagle
