BARTELLI v. WYNDER et al

Filing 75

ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS OVERRULED; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED; PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS DENIED; AND A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IS NOT GRANTED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY ON 3/7/11. 3/8/11 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)

BARTELLI v. WYNDER et al

Doc. 75

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KEITH BARTELLI, Petitioner v. JAMES WYNDER, et al. Respondents : : : : : : : ORDER AND NOW, this _7th _ day of March 2011, upon consideration of the pleadings and record herein, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter, it is ORDERED that:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-3817

1.

Petitioner's Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 72) is OVERRULED;1

2.

The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 68) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

1

Petitioner does not object to a specific proposed finding or recommendation in the Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). The Objection appears to make two points, neither of which are responsive to the R&R or undermine its recommendations. First, Petitioner seems to argue that he had ineffective assistance of counsel because "[t]here is clear evidence in the record" that the victim "allowed" him into her home and because someone "further testified that `I took nothing from him or from his home'." Objection 5-6. The R&R does not imply to the contrary, and neither factual contention undermines the R&R's finding that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim is procedurally defaulted. Second, Petitioner challenges the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction over him. See id. at 6 (arguing that the Court of Common Pleas did not have "subject matter jurisdiction upon [his] person" because "PA.'s Purdon's statutes" lack an "enacting clause"). This argument is both meritless and procedurally defaulted.

Dockets.Justia.com

3.

The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED;

4.

Petitioner's Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 64) is DENIED;

5.

Petitioner's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 65) is DENIED; and

6.

A certificate of appealability is not granted.

s/Anita B. Brody __________________________ ANITA B. BRODY, J.

Copies VIA ECF on _________ to:

Copies MAILED on _______ to: