Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BROWN v. BICKELL, 12-2400. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20141114c56 Visitors: 8
Filed: Nov. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 12, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAN E. DuBOIS, District Judge. AND NOW, this 12th day of November, 2014, upon consideration of Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner, Keith Stanley Brown (Document No. 1, filed May 3, 2012), Petitioner's Memorandum in Support of Habeas Corpus Petitioner (Document No. 5, filed August 11, 2012), Response in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 11, filed March 15, 2013), Respondents' Supplementa
More

ORDER

JAN E. DuBOIS, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 12th day of November, 2014, upon consideration of Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner, Keith Stanley Brown (Document No. 1, filed May 3, 2012), Petitioner's Memorandum in Support of Habeas Corpus Petitioner (Document No. 5, filed August 11, 2012), Response in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 11, filed March 15, 2013), Respondents' Supplemental Memorandum of Law (Document No. 17, filed June 9, 2014), the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice (Document No. 19, filed June 20, 2014), and Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation (Document No. 20, filed July 1, 2014), for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum dated November 12, 2014, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice filed June 20, 2014, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED;

2. Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, are OVERRULED;

3. The Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner, Keith Stanley Brown, is DENIED AND DISMISSED;

4. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate whether (a) the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right or (b) this Court's procedural rulings with respect to petitioner's claims were erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); and,

5. The Clerk of the Court shall mark this case CLOSED.

Source:  Leagle

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