Filed: Jul. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 25, 2019
Summary: ORDER MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG , District Judge . AND NOW, this 25 th day of July, 2019, upon careful and independent consideration of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Doc. No. 1), and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice ("R&R") (Doc. No. 17), and Petitioner's Objections thereto (Doc. No. 20), I find as follows: 1. In 2009, Petitioner, Leander Williams, was convicted of, among other things, first-deg
Summary: ORDER MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG , District Judge . AND NOW, this 25 th day of July, 2019, upon careful and independent consideration of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Doc. No. 1), and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice ("R&R") (Doc. No. 17), and Petitioner's Objections thereto (Doc. No. 20), I find as follows: 1. In 2009, Petitioner, Leander Williams, was convicted of, among other things, first-degr..
More
ORDER
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 25th day of July, 2019, upon careful and independent consideration of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 1), and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice ("R&R") (Doc. No. 17), and Petitioner's Objections thereto (Doc. No. 20), I find as follows:
1. In 2009, Petitioner, Leander Williams, was convicted of, among other things, first-degree murder.1 Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied direct review in 2013. (See R&R 3.)
2. In 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for state collateral review under the Pennsylvania Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). The PCRA court dismissed the petition. In 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review. (See R&R 3.)
3. Thereafter, Petitioner initiated these federal habeas proceedings, pro se, raising five claims that his trial counsel and/or appellate counsel were ineffective. (See R&R 4-14.)
4. In his R&R, Judge Rice concluded that each of these five claims was procedurally defaulted and/or failed on the merits. (See R&R 4-14.)
5. Following the issuance of the R&R, Petitioner filed a document styled "Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation." (Doc. No. 20.) However, in these Objections, Petitioner does not challenge any of Judge Rice's conclusions as set out in the R&R. Rather, Petitioner objects that, one week before issuing the R&R, Judge Rice denied his motion for an extension of time to file a reply in further support of his Petition.2
6. Because Petitioner has filed no objections the substantive conclusions set out in the R&R, I will not re-address the merits of his claims, apart from noting that Judge Rice addressed the pertinent issues thoroughly and correctly. See Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6 (3d Cir. 1984) (holding that de novo review by a district court is not required where no specific objection to the report and recommendation is made).
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that:
• Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 20) are OVERRULED.
• The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 17) is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
• The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
• No certificate of appealability shall issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) because Petitioner "has [not] made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), since Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find this Court's assessment of Petitioner's claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
• The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.
