EDWARDS v. WALSH, 13-1010. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20150710b75
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER JOEL H. SLOMSKY , District Judge . AND NOW, this 9th day of July 2015, upon consideration of Petitioner's Motion for 60(b)(6) Relief (Doc. No. 32), Respondent's Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 37), and in accordance with the Opinion of the Court issued this day, it is ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. No. 32) is DENIED. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate the propriety of the Court's ruling. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Slack v
Summary: ORDER JOEL H. SLOMSKY , District Judge . AND NOW, this 9th day of July 2015, upon consideration of Petitioner's Motion for 60(b)(6) Relief (Doc. No. 32), Respondent's Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 37), and in accordance with the Opinion of the Court issued this day, it is ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. No. 32) is DENIED. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate the propriety of the Court's ruling. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Slack v...
More
ORDER
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 9th day of July 2015, upon consideration of Petitioner's Motion for 60(b)(6) Relief (Doc. No. 32), Respondent's Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 37), and in accordance with the Opinion of the Court issued this day, it is ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. No. 32) is DENIED. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate the propriety of the Court's ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Clerk of Court shall close the above-captioned case.
Source: Leagle
