UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DAVIS

Filing 100

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 93) IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; 2. PETITIONERS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE BY SEPARATE JUDGMENT, FILED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THIS ORDER; NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILI TY SHALL ISSUE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2253(C)(1)(A) BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS [NOT] MADE A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT [,] UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2253(C)(2), SINCE HE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT REASONABLE JURIST WOULD FIND THE ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS DEBATABLE OR WRONG. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN M. GALLAGHER ON 6/13/24. 6/14/24 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(mas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
ROBERT DAVIS,

:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
RANDALL SEARS, et al.,
:
Respondents.
:
__________________________________________

Civil No. 2:09-cv-5693-JMG

ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of June 2024, upon consideration of Petitioner’s Amended
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 29), Respondent’s Response (ECF No. 86), the
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret (ECF No. 93),
and Petitioner’s Preliminary Objections (ECF Nos. 95-99), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as
follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 93) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice by
separate Judgment, filed contemporaneously with this Order; 1
3. No certificate of appealability shall issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) because “the
applicant has [not] made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right
[,]” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), since he has not demonstrated that “reasonable
jurist” would find the “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” 2

1

See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts, Rule 12.
2
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); See United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 26263 (3d Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012).

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John M. Gallagher
JOHN M. GALLAGHER
United States District Court Judge