MUHAMMAD v. ROZUM et al

Filing 11

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION THAT THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FILED; THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FILED; OBJECTIONS TO THE R EPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS OVERRULED, ETC. PETITIONER'S MOTION TO CHALLENGE OR WITHDRAW PLEAS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC. A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE, ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 2/23/12. 2/24/12 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(lvj, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION

MR. CARLOS MUHAMMAD
Petitioner,

v.

NO. 11·7666

SUPERINTENDENT GERALD L. ROZUM,
and SUPERINTENDENT GEHLMAN,
Respondents.
ORDER
AND NOW this 23rd of February, 2012, upon consideration ofthe Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by petitioner, Carlos Muhammad (Document
No.1 filed December 15, 2011), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge LindaK. Caracappa dated January 31, 2012, and the Review of Case Dispositive Motion and
Prisoner Litigation 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(I)(B) (Document No. 10, filed February 13,2012), treated
by the Court as Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the record in this case, and the
Rule 591 Motion to Challenge or Withdraw Plea (Document No.9, filed February 6,2012), IT IS
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation ofUnited States Magistrate Judge Linda K.
Caracappa dated January 31, 2012, is APPROVED and ADOPTED, with the sole EXCEPTION
that the Petition for Habeas Corpus is dismissed as untimely filed; [
2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by
petitioner, Carlos Muhammad, is DISMISSED as UNTIMELY FILED;
3. The Review of Case Dispositive Motion and Prisoner Litigation 28 U.S.C.
636(b)(J)(B), treated by the Court as Objections to the Report and Recommendation, is

[The Report and Recommendation recommended that the Petition be "DENIED AND
DISMISSED."

OVERRULED on the ground that it addresses the merits of petitioner's claims, not the
timeliness of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which was the basis for the Report and
Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation did not address the merits of the Petition as
there was no need to do so;
4. Petitioner's Rule 591 Motion to Challenge or Withdraw Plea is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to petitioner's right to present the issues raised in the Motion with the appropriate
state court; and,
"

5. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate
whether the petition states a valid claim ofthe 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:

,..

\&A'Z'

O\.. ~

\JAN E. DUBOIS, J.

2