welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
  4. 2014
  5. RIVERA v. WETZEL, 5:13-CV-3859-CDJ. (2014)

RIVERA v. WETZEL, 5:13-CV-3859-CDJ. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20140423c78 Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 21, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 21, 2014
Summary: ORDER C. DARNELL JONES, II, District Judge. AND NOW, this 21 st day of April, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1.) The Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Thomas J. Rueter, United States Magistrate Judge, (Doc. No. 10), is APPROVED AND ADOPTED; 1 2.) Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. No. 1), is DISMISSED; 3.) Petitioner's Request for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED; and 4.) A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue. FootNotes 1. When
More

ORDER

C. DARNELL JONES, II, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 21st day of April, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1.) The Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Thomas J. Rueter, United States Magistrate Judge, (Doc. No. 10), is APPROVED AND ADOPTED;1 2.) Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. No. 1), is DISMISSED; 3.) Petitioner's Request for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED; and 4.) A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue.

FootNotes


1. When timely objections are filed to the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court must review de nova those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). If there are no objections to the report and recommendation or when reviewing those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are directed, the court should, as a matter of good practice, "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987).

Petitioner objects to the R&R insofar as it dismisses his claim pursuant to the statute of limitations, arguing that the state's failure to provide him with PCRA counsel tolled the statute of limitations pursuant to statutory and equitable tolling. He also argues that the failure to appoint counsel constitutes cause and prejudice and worked a manifest injustice. However, the Supreme Court has held that there is no right to counsel in state post-conviction relief proceedings. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991). As such, plaintiffs argument is without merit.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
5:13-CV-3859-CDJ.
Counsels
  • MELISSA J. NOYES
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