Rivera v. Superintendent of SCI Huntingdon, 15-4859. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20160517c58
Visitors: 4
Filed: May 13, 2016
Latest Update: May 13, 2016
Summary: ORDER JOEL H. SLOMSKY , District Judge . AND NOW , this 13th day of May 2016, upon consideration of Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 3), Respondents' Response to the Petition (Doc. No. 15), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter (Doc. No. 16), and that the Report and Recommendation has not been objected to by the parties, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 16) is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2
Summary: ORDER JOEL H. SLOMSKY , District Judge . AND NOW , this 13th day of May 2016, upon consideration of Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 3), Respondents' Response to the Petition (Doc. No. 15), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter (Doc. No. 16), and that the Report and Recommendation has not been objected to by the parties, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 16) is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2...
More
ORDER
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 13th day of May 2016, upon consideration of Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 3), Respondents' Response to the Petition (Doc. No. 15), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter (Doc. No. 16), and that the Report and Recommendation has not been objected to by the parties, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 16) is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED.
3. A Certificate of Appealability SHALL NOT issue because, based on the analysis contained in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, as approved and adopted by this Court, a reasonable jurist could not conclude that the Court is incorrect in denying and dismissing the Habeas Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000).
4. The Clerk of Court shall close this case for statistical purposes.
Source: Leagle
