welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
  4. 2019
  5. Fulton v. District Attorney of the County of Philadelphia, 17-5566. (2019)

Fulton v. District Attorney of the County of Philadelphia, 17-5566. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20190325d15 Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 21, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2019
Summary: ORDER JUAN R. S NCHEZ , Chief District Judge . AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2019, upon careful and independent consideration of Petitioner Lamont Fulton's pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the response in opposition thereto, Fulton's reply, and the available state court records, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter, to which no objections have been filed 1 , it is ORDERED: 1. The Report and
More

ORDER

AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2019, upon careful and independent consideration of Petitioner Lamont Fulton's pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the response in opposition thereto, Fulton's reply, and the available state court records, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter, to which no objections have been filed1, it is ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Document 12) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2. Fulton's claims are DISMISSED as barred by the statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); 3. Fulton's motion for stay (Document 4) is DENIED as MOOT; and 4. There is no cause to issue a certificate of appealability.

FootNotes


1. The Report and Recommendation was sent to all parties of record on May 24, 2018, together with a Notice from the Clerk of Court advising the parties of their obligation to file any objections within 14 days after service of the Notice. See Local R. Civ. P. 72.1 IV(b) ("Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and subsections 1(c) and (d) of this Rule within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof."). As of today's date, no objections have been filed.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
17-5566.
Counsels
  • KELLY BRITTNEY WEAR
Similar Cases

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