JOHNSON v. RYAN, 89-2999. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20151008c74
Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 07, 2015
Summary: ORDER JOEL H. SLOMSKY , District Judge . AND NOW , this 6th day of October 2015, upon consideration of Petitioner's pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 32), Respondents' Answer Regarding Timeliness of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 42), Petitioner's Response to Respondents' Reply (Doc. No. 44), the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter (Doc. No. 45), and Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and R
Summary: ORDER JOEL H. SLOMSKY , District Judge . AND NOW , this 6th day of October 2015, upon consideration of Petitioner's pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 32), Respondents' Answer Regarding Timeliness of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 42), Petitioner's Response to Respondents' Reply (Doc. No. 44), the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter (Doc. No. 45), and Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Re..
More
ORDER
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 6th day of October 2015, upon consideration of Petitioner's pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 32), Respondents' Answer Regarding Timeliness of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 42), Petitioner's Response to Respondents' Reply (Doc. No. 44), the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter (Doc. No. 45), and Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 49), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 45) is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 32) is DENIED.
3. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT issue, in that the Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right nor demonstrated that reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of this ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000).
4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.
Source: Leagle
