Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

HOLLAND v. FOLINO, 13-6623. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20150416760 Visitors: 19
Filed: Mar. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER C. DARNELL JONES, II , District Judge . AND NOW, this 26 th day of March, 2015, upon careful and independent consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa (Doc. No. 14), and Petitioner's Objections thereto (Doc. No. 21), it is hereby ORDERED as follows: (1) Petitioner's Objections are OVERRULED; (2) The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2 (3) The Petition f
More

ORDER

AND NOW, this 26th day of March, 2015, upon careful and independent consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa (Doc. No. 14), and Petitioner's Objections thereto (Doc. No. 21), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

(1) Petitioner's Objections are OVERRULED; (2) The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;2 (3) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED with prejudice; (4) Petitioner's Motion for Financial Assistance (Doc. 4) is DENIED; (5) Petitioner's Motions for Discovery (Docs. 9 & 10) are DENIED; (6) Petitioner's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Traverse to Respondent's Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motions for Discovery (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED; (7) A Certificate of Appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE, as Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right; and (8) The Clerk of the Court shall mark this matter CLOSED for statistical purposes.

FootNotes


1. This Court notes that Petitioner mistakenly transposed the Ai@ and Au@ in Warden Louis S. Folino's name when listing him as Respondent in the originally-filed Petition (Doc. No. 1). The Clerk of Court has captioned the matter accordingly.
2. As set forth in this Court's accompanying Opinion regarding Petitioner's sixth objection, this Court disagrees with one particular aspect of the Magistrate's findings. However, because the ultimate conclusions reached in the R&R are correct, this Court approves and adopts same.
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