FRANKS v. ROZUM et al

Filing 31

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND DISMISSED; THE OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARE DENIED AND OVERRULED; A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 1/21/14. 1/23/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES E. FRANKS,
Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
GERALD ROZUM, Superintendent,
THOMAS CORBETT, PA Attrny. Gen.,
and R. SETH WILLIAMS, Phila. D.A.,
Respondents.

NO. 12-3869

ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of January, 2014, upon consideration of pro se Petition Under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by James E.
Franks, the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Timothy R. Rice dated December 31, 2013, and document entitled “Reconsideration of
Appeal in Civil Matters. (a) Reconsideration of Now Disposition Matters 28 U.S.C.
636(b)(1)(A),” treated by the Court as objections to the Report and Recommendation, IT IS
ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R.

Rice dated December 31, 2013, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED;
2.

The pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a

Person in State Custody filed by James E. Franks is DENIED and DISMISSED;
3.

The document entitled “Reconsideration of Appeal in Civil Matters. (a)

Reconsideration of Now Disposition Matters 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A),” treated by the Court as
objections to the Report and Recommendation, is DENIED and OVERRULED on the ground
that all of the issues raised in the document were addressed by Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice
in the Report and Recommendation which the Court has approved and adopted; and,

4.

A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not

debate (a) this Court’s decision that the petition does not state a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right, or (b) the propriety of 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/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.

2