Smith v. Luther, 18-200. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20180726d90
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2018
Summary: ORDER GERALD A. McHUGH , District Judge . AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2018, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Commonwealth's Answer, the other documents filed by the parties, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells, is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED ; 2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED , without an evidentiary he
Summary: ORDER GERALD A. McHUGH , District Judge . AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2018, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Commonwealth's Answer, the other documents filed by the parties, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells, is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED ; 2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED , without an evidentiary hea..
More
ORDER
GERALD A. McHUGH, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2018, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Commonwealth's Answer, the other documents filed by the parties, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells, is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED;
2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED, without an evidentiary hearing; and
3. Petitioner has neither shown denial of a federal constitutional right, nor established that reasonable jurists would disagree with this court's procedural disposition of his claims. Consequently, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
