JOHNSON v. BRITTON et al

Filing 16

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICE IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; BOTH THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED PURSUANT TO 28 USC, SECTION 2254 AND THE "AMENDED HABEAS CORPUS PETITION" ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUD ICE. BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OR TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A REASONABLE JURIST WOULD DEBATE THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS RULING, THE COURT DECLINES TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY UNDER 28 USC, SECTION 2253(c)(2); AND THE CLERK SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE STATISTICALLY.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOHN R. PADOVA ON 10/25/10. 10/27/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, )

JOHNSON v. BRITTON et al

Doc. 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY JOHNSON : CIVIL ACTION : : : : NO. 10-990 v. RANDALL E. BRITTON, ET AL. ORDER AND NOW,this 25th day ofOctober,2010,upon careful and independent consideration ofthe Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Docket No. 1), as well as the Petitioner's "Amended Habeas Corpus Petition" (Docket No. 10), and after review of United States MagistrateJudgeTimothy R.Rice'sReportand Recommendation (Docket No.14),to which Petitioner has filed no Objections, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Rice is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2. Both the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and the "Amended Habeas Corpus Petition" are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;1

1

Petitioner filed two habeas Petitions in this action ­ an initial Petition in March of 2010, and an Amended Petition, which the Clerk docketed on June 3, 2010. In the Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Magistrate Judge Rice addresses only the initial Petition, recommending that it be dismissed as untimely,because it was filed almost seven months afterthe one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) had expired. Although the R&R does not specifically address the Amended Petition, its analysis is equally applicable to that petition. We therefore approve and adopt the R&R and, based on its analysis, dismiss both the Petition and the Amended Petition. John R. Padova, J.

Dockets.Justia.com

3.

Because Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right or to demonstrate that a reasonable jurist would debate the correctness of this ruling, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); and

4.

The Clerk shall CLOSE this case statistically.

BY THE COURT: /s/ John R. Padova, J.

-2