SIMPSON v. ERKERD, 14-4999. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20170821913
Visitors: 2
Filed: Aug. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 14, 2017
Summary: ORDER JOEL H. SLOMSKY , District Judge . AND NOW, this 14th day of August 2017, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1), the Response to the Petition (Doc. No. 17), the pertinent state court record, the Report and Recommendation of United States Chief Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa (Doc. No. 19), Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 20), and in accordance with the Opinion issued this day, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Re
Summary: ORDER JOEL H. SLOMSKY , District Judge . AND NOW, this 14th day of August 2017, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1), the Response to the Petition (Doc. No. 17), the pertinent state court record, the Report and Recommendation of United States Chief Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa (Doc. No. 19), Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 20), and in accordance with the Opinion issued this day, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Rep..
More
ORDER
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 14th day of August 2017, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1), the Response to the Petition (Doc. No. 17), the pertinent state court record, the Report and Recommendation of United States Chief Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa (Doc. No. 19), Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 20), and in accordance with the Opinion issued this day, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 19) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE;
3. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT issue, in that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of the procedural grounds for this ruling. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); and
4. The Clerk of the Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.
Source: Leagle
