WILSON v. BANKS et al

Filing 35

ORDER THAT AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARE OVERRULED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2254 IS DENIED; PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS DENIED; AND A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT BE ISSUED, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 7/14/11. 7/14/11 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(ti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANDRE WILSON

CIVIL ACTION
Petitioner,

v.

NO. 10-1884

TERERSER A. BANKS and THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
Respondents.

"f!"

.}vL

,

,1
I

r'

'-"

I

MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk

ORDER

By

Oep. Clerk

AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 2011, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 2254 and supporting documents filed by Andre Wilson
(Document No.1), the Response to the Petition (Document No. 21), Petitioner's Amended
Supplemental Memorandum (Document No. 30), Respondents' Supplemental Memorandum
Addressing Recent Authority (Document No. 31), petitioner's Request for an [sic] Federal
Evidentiary Hearing under §2254(e) (Document No. 29), and the Response to Petitioner's
Request for Evidentiary Hearing (Document No. 32), and after review of the Amended Report
and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin dated June 17, 2011,
Petitioner's Objections to the Amended Report and Recommendation, and the record in this case,
IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The Amended Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Henry
S. Perkin dated June 17, 2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. Petitioner's Objections to the Amended Report and Recommendation are
OVERRULED. The issues raised in the Objections were covered in the Report and
Recommendation which the Court has approved and adopted;

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Andre
Wilson is DENIED;
4. Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED; and,
6. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate
whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right or this Court's
procedural rulings with respect to petitioner's claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

BY THE COURT:

\JAN E. DUBOIS, J.

2