TAYLOR v. COLEMAN, 11-6908. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20150120788
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 13, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROBERT F. KELLY, Senior District Judge. AND NOW, this 13th day of January, 2015, upon careful and independent consideration of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and appended exhibits, the response to the petition and appended exhibits, Petitioner's reply, and available state court records, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge and Petioner's objections thereto, it is hereby ORDERED : 1. Petitioner's objections t
Summary: ORDER ROBERT F. KELLY, Senior District Judge. AND NOW, this 13th day of January, 2015, upon careful and independent consideration of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and appended exhibits, the response to the petition and appended exhibits, Petitioner's reply, and available state court records, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge and Petioner's objections thereto, it is hereby ORDERED : 1. Petitioner's objections to..
More
ORDER
ROBERT F. KELLY, Senior District Judge.
AND NOW, this 13th day of January, 2015, upon careful and independent consideration of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and appended exhibits, the response to the petition and appended exhibits, Petitioner's reply, and available state court records, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge and Petioner's objections thereto, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Petitioner's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation are DENIED;
2. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
3. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED;
4. 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 the procedural aspects of this ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); and
5. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.
Source: Leagle
