GRIFFIN v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNA. et al
ORDER THAT THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE LYNNE A. SITARSKI IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PRO SE PETITIONER'S OBJECTION TO SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IS OVERRULED; PETITIONERS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OR AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; PRO SE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 7/14/11 IS DENIED; A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE, ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 8/8/12. 8/8/12 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PAUL Q. GRIFFIN,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE
COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, and THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
AND NOW, this 8th day of August, 2012, upon consideration of pro se petitioner’s
Motion for Relief from Order of July 14, 2011 (Document No. 18, filed September 29, 2011), pro
se petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Motion for Relief from Order of July 14, 2011,
or Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 20, filed October 12, 2011), the
Supplemental Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski
dated June 14, 2012 (Document No. 28, filed June 14, 2012), and pro se petitioner’s Objection to
Supplemental Report and Recommendation (Document No. 32, filed July 30, 2012), IT IS
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Supplemental Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Lynne A. Sitarski dated June 14, 2012, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. Pro se petitioner’s Objection to Supplemental Report and Recommendation is
3. Pro se petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Motion for Relief from Order of
July 14, 2011, or Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to petitioner’s right to seek authorization from the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit to file a second or successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(A);
4. Pro se petitioner’s Motion for Relief from July 14, 2011, is DENIED;
5. 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:
/s/ Jan E. DuBois
JAN E. DUBOIS, J.
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?