Jacobs v. Delaney, 19-cv-01320. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20191226574
Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 16, 2019
Summary: ORDER JOEL H. SLOMSKY , District Judge . AND NOW this 16 th day of DECEMBER , 2019, upon careful and independent consideration of Steven Jacobs' petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1), the Commonwealth's response in opposition (Doc. No. 13), and the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2. Jacobs' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corp
Summary: ORDER JOEL H. SLOMSKY , District Judge . AND NOW this 16 th day of DECEMBER , 2019, upon careful and independent consideration of Steven Jacobs' petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1), the Commonwealth's response in opposition (Doc. No. 13), and the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2. Jacobs' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpu..
More
ORDER
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, District Judge.
AND NOW this 16th day of DECEMBER, 2019, upon careful and independent consideration of Steven Jacobs' petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1), the Commonwealth's response in opposition (Doc. No. 13), and the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. Jacobs' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED without 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;
3. 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,
4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this file closed.
Source: Leagle
