Smiley v. Pitkins, 14-0807. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20160414d77
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 12, 2016
Summary: ORDER JOEL H. SLOMSKY , District Judge . AND NOW, this 12th day of April 2016, upon consideration of Petitioner's pro se Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1), Petitioner's Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 10), Petitioner's Federal Cases and Memorandum of Law with Historical Commentaries (Doc. No. 17), the Government's Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 18), Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 20), Petitioner's Objections to the Re
Summary: ORDER JOEL H. SLOMSKY , District Judge . AND NOW, this 12th day of April 2016, upon consideration of Petitioner's pro se Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1), Petitioner's Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 10), Petitioner's Federal Cases and Memorandum of Law with Historical Commentaries (Doc. No. 17), the Government's Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 18), Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 20), Petitioner's Objections to the Rep..
More
ORDER
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 12th day of April 2016, upon consideration of Petitioner's pro se Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1), Petitioner's Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 10), Petitioner's Federal Cases and Memorandum of Law with Historical Commentaries (Doc. No. 17), the Government's Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 18), Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 20), Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 27), the Government's Response to Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 36), Petitioner's Rebuttal to Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 40), and the pertinent state court record, and in accordance with the Opinion of the Court issued this day, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 20) is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED.
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 (2000).
4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.
Source: Leagle
