HORTON v. LAMAS et al
Filing
41
OPINION/ORDER THAT MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICE'S REPORT AND RECOMMDATION IS APPROVED AND ADAPTED; HORTON'S WRITTEN OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED; THE AMENDED PETITION IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, THE APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IS DENIED ; PETITIONER'S MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED AND MOTION TO CORRECT PROCEDURAL DEFECTS WITH REQUESTED RELIEF IS WITHDRAWN. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF COURT MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 8/30/13. 8/30/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(ky, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NAKIA HORTON,
Petitioner
vs.
MARIROSA LAMAS,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF PENNSYLVANIA and
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCI ROCKVIEW
Respondents
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action
No. 10-cv-04728
O R D E R
NOW, this 30th day of August, 2013, upon consideration
of the following documents:
(1)
Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which petition was
filed by Nakia Horton pro se1 on November 30, 2010
(Document 6), together with
(A)
Supporting Exhibits A through K;
(2)
(3)
Horton’s Written Objections to the Report and
Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy R.
Rice, which objections were filed May 25, 2011
(Document 30);
(4)
Respondents’ Brief Answer to Petitioner’s
Objections to Report and Recommendation, which
answer was filed June 30, 2011 (Document 32);
(5)
1
Report and Recommendation by United States
Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice filed April 14,
2011 (Document 26);
Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Answer to
Written Objections, which reply was filed July 13,
2011 (Document 33);
Each of petitioner’s documents, numbered (3), (5), (6), (7), (8),
(9) and (10), below, were filed by petitioner Nakia Horton, pro se.
(6)
Application for Certificate of Appealability filed
by petitioner on July 13, 2011 (Document 34);
(7)
Motion to Correct Procedural Defects With
Requested Relief, which motion was filed by
petitioner on December 5, 2012 (Document 36);
(8)
Supplemental Objections to the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Timothy R.
Rice, which objections were filed by petitioner on
March 14, 2013 (Document 38);
(9)
Motion to Strike filed by petitioner on March 27,
2013 (Document 39); and
(10) original Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ
of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody
filed September 14, 2010 (Document 1);
it appearing that many of petitioner’s objections to Magistrate
Judge Rice Report and Recommendation are a restatement of the
issues raised in his underlying petition for habeas corpus
relief; it further appearing after de novo review of this matter
that Magistrate Judge Rice’s Report and Recommendation correctly
determined the legal and factual issues presented in the petition
for habeas corpus relief; and for the reasons expressed in the
accompanying Opinion,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Rice’s Report and
Recommendation is approved and adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Horton’s Written Objections
to the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy
R. Rice are overruled.
-ii-
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s Supplemental
Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Timothy R. Rice are overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied with
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s Application for
Certificate of Appealability is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion to
Strike is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion to
Correct Procedural Defects With Requested Relief is withdrawn.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because defendant has not
met statutory requirements to have his case heard, and no
reasonable jurist could find this ruling debatable, and because
defendant fails to demonstrate denial of a constitutional right,
a certificate of appealability is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this
case closed for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ James Knoll Gardner
James Knoll Gardner
United States District Judge
-iii-
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?