Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sovann v. Kauffman, 16-4800. (2020)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20200317606 Visitors: 23
Filed: Mar. 13, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 13, 2020
Summary: ORDER JAN E. DuBOIS , District Judge . AND NOW , this 10th day of March, 2020, 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, Sophana Sovann (Document No. 1, filed September 6, 2016), the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin dated November 7, 2018 (Document No. 27), pro se petitioner's Objections to [the] Report and Recommendation (Do
More

ORDER

AND NOW, this 10th day of March, 2020, 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, Sophana Sovann (Document No. 1, filed September 6, 2016), the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin dated November 7, 2018 (Document No. 27), pro se petitioner's Objections to [the] Report and Recommendation (Document No. 37, filed May 9, 2019), IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin dated November 7, 2018, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. Pro se petitioner's Objections to [the] Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED;

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, Sophana Sovann, is DENIED and DISMISSED;

4. To the extent that pro se petitioner requested an evidentiary hearing in his Objections to [the] Report and Recommendation, pro se petitioner's request is DENIED on the ground that all relevant facts are matters of record.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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 with respect to petitioner's claims. 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