THOMAS v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 14-171. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20150812c93
Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 11, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 11, 2015
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE F. STENGEL , Magistrate Judge . AND NOW, this 10 th day of August, 2015, upon careful and independent consideration of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1), the response (Doc. No. 11), and available state court records, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge (Doc. No. 13), it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 1 2. The petition for a wr
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE F. STENGEL , Magistrate Judge . AND NOW, this 10 th day of August, 2015, upon careful and independent consideration of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1), the response (Doc. No. 11), and available state court records, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge (Doc. No. 13), it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 1 2. The petition for a wri..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, Magistrate Judge.
AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2015, upon careful and independent consideration of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1), the response (Doc. No. 11), and available state court records, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge (Doc. No. 13), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;1
2. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
3. 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 this ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
The Clerk of the Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.
FootNotes
1. Mr. Thomas did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Source: Leagle
