WEST v. SAUERS et al
Filing
21
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED (ECF 17) AND SUPPLEMENT TO OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF 19) ARE OVERRULED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF 1) IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; THERE IS NO BAS IS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS MATTER AS CLOSED FOR STATISITCAL PURPOSES.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 1/3/13. 1/4/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER, MAILED AND E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JASON ISAAC WEST,
:
:
:
:
:
:
Petitioner,
v.
DEBRA SAUERS, et al.,
Respondents.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 12-cv-274
ORDER
AND NOW, on this 3rd
day of January, 2013, upon careful consideration of Petitioner
Jason West’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 1), the July 13, 2012 Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Arnold C. Rapoport (ECF 14), Petitioner’s Objection
(ECF 17), Petitioner’s Supplement to Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF 19),
and all related filings, and for the reasons in the accompanying Memorandum Re: Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus, it is hereby ORDERED:
1.
The Report and Recommendation (ECF 14) is APPROVED and ADOPTED, subject
to the discussion of why West’s claims are procedurally defaulted in the
accompanying Memorandum.
2.
Petitioner’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF 17) and Supplement
to Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF 19) are OVERRULED.
3.
The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.
4.
There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.
5.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this matter as CLOSED for statistical
purposes.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lawrence F. Stengel, for
________________________
Michael M. Baylson, U.S.D.J.
O:\CIVIL 12\12-274 West v. Sauers\Order.doc
1
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?