WALLACE v. WYDNER et al

Filing 80

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 69) IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMEDATION, RESPONSE AND REPLY (DOC. NOS. 70, 74, 78) ARE OVERRULED. PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. NO. 1) IS DENIED AND DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABIILITY SHALL NOT ISSUEE AND THAT THIS CASE SHALL BE MARKED CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 1/19/10. 1/19/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED TO COUNSEL. (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARK WALLACE a/k/a MARK GREEN, Petitioner, v. JAMES WYDNER, JR. et al., Respondents. : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-6197

ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of January, 2010, for the reasons provided in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED:

1.

The Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 69) is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2.

Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, Response, and Reply (doc. nos. 70, 74, 78, respectively) are OVERRULED.

3.

Petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus (doc. no. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of
a p pe a la b il i ty 1 shall not issue and that this case shall be marked

CLOSED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no a b so l ut e entitlement to appeal a district court's denial of his p e ti t io n . 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Rather, a district court must f i rs t issue a certificate of appealability (COA). Id. "A [COA] m a y issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial s h ow i ng of the denial of a constitutional right." Id. at § 2 2 53 ( c) ( 2) . To make such a showing, petitioner "must demonstrate t h at reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment o f the constitutional claims debatable or wrong," Tennard v. D r et k e, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U . S. 473, 484 (2000)), or that "the issues presented were `adequate t o deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Miller-El v. C o ck r el l , 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 4 6 3 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). Petitioner has not made the r e qu i si t e showing in these circumstances.

1