Filed: Dec. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER PAUL S. DIAMOND , District Judge . AND NOW , this 29th day of December, 2017, upon consideration of the Petition for Habeas Relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Doc. No. 1), Petitioner's amendment and memorandum in support of his Petition (Doc. Nos. 10, 25), the Commonwealth's Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 28), Petitioner's statement and traverse (Doc. Nos. 39, 40), Judge Lloret's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 41), Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 44), all other related submissio
Summary: ORDER PAUL S. DIAMOND , District Judge . AND NOW , this 29th day of December, 2017, upon consideration of the Petition for Habeas Relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Doc. No. 1), Petitioner's amendment and memorandum in support of his Petition (Doc. Nos. 10, 25), the Commonwealth's Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 28), Petitioner's statement and traverse (Doc. Nos. 39, 40), Judge Lloret's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 41), Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 44), all other related submission..
More
ORDER
PAUL S. DIAMOND, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 2017, upon consideration of the Petition for Habeas Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 1), Petitioner's amendment and memorandum in support of his Petition (Doc. Nos. 10, 25), the Commonwealth's Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 28), Petitioner's statement and traverse (Doc. Nos. 39, 40), Judge Lloret's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 41), Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 44), all other related submissions, and after an independent review of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 44) are OVERRULED in part;
2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 41) is ADOPTED in part;
3. Petitioner's § 2254 Petition (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED;
4. A Certificate of Appealability shall NOT ISSUE under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(C)(1)(A) because Petitioner has not demonstrated that "reasonable jurists" would find my "assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); and
5. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this action.
