BROWN v. LAWLER et al
ORDER THAT: THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH T. HEY IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS DENIED; THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED; AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR ALL PURPOSES, ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 6/4/12. 6/5/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(fb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE NO. 10-cv-0428
RAYMOND LAWLER, et al.,
The Court has carefully reviewed all pleadings, the full record, and the Report and
Recommendation filed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey (Dkt. No. 32) (“R&R”). The
Court has also reviewed the Objections filed by Petitioner (Dkt. No. 35), and fully concurs with
Magistrate Judge Hey’s conclusions concerning procedural default and Petitioner’s inability to
overcome the hurdles created by such. Moreover, where Petitioner may not have defaulted, the
Court concurs with Magistrate Judge Hey’s conclusions that Petitioner’s contentions are without
merit,1 and thus are insufficient to justify an evidentiary hearing. Williams v. Beard, 637 F.3d
In his Petition, Mr. Brown alleges that his trial/direct appeal counsel was ineffective
because he: 1) failed to interview and present certain alibi witnesses; 2) failed to request an alibi
instruction; 3) stipulated that an incriminating letter found in Petitioner’s friend’s residence was
written by Petitioner; and 4) failed to file an allocatur petition and to consult with Petitioner
concerning the filing of such a petition. Mr. Brown also alleges that the cumulative effect of the
above alleged errors amounts to a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights.
In response, Magistrate Judge Hey concludes Petitioner’s third and fifth claims are
procedurally defaulted, as well as meritless, and that his first, second and fourth claims lack
merit, as “the state courts reasonably applied the standards set forth in Strickland [v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984) (setting forth standard for petitioner seeking habeas relief on grounds of
ineffective assistance of counsel)] to deny relief to Brown.” R&R at 11. Upon careful de novo
review of the state court record, this Court concurs; Petitioner has failed to raise any Objections
beyond reiteration of the underlying facts and arguments set forth in his Petition and related
responses. See Cherry v. Wynder, Civ. No. 05-2560, 2007 WL 983826, at *7-9 (E.D. Pa. Mar.
Page 1 of 2
195 (3d Cir. 2011). Petitioner has not presented any compelling basis to disturb the decisions of
the Pennsylvania courts.
AND NOW, this 4th day of June, 2012, it is hereby ORDERED that:
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey is
APPROVED and ADOPTED;
Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED;
The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED;
The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and
The Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed for all purposes, including
BY THE COURT:
/s/ C. Darnell Jones, II
C. DARNELL JONES, II
26, 2007) (objections which do not respond to magistrate judge’s recommendation on claim, but
instead repeat assertions raised in petition are properly overruled).
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?