SPORISH v. HARLOW et al
ORDER THAT MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKINS R&R, ECF NO. 36, IS ADOPTED. PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ECF NO. 42, IS DENIED. PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE R&R, ECF NO. 43, ARE OVERRULED. PETITIONER'S MOTION FO R STAY AND ABEYANCE, ECF NO. 50, IS DENIED.PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND, ECF NO. 51, IS GRANTED, AND HIS ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS COURT'S REVIEW.THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ECF NO. 1, IS DISMISSED.THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. THE ORDER DATED MAY 7, 2015, ECF NO. 37, IS AFFIRMED. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 9/26/16. 9/27/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER, E-MAILED.(er, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES DANIEL SPORISH,
MICHAEL W. HARLOW, THE DISTRICT :
ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF
DELAWARE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL :
OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2016, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum
issued this date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin’s R&R, ECF No. 36, is ADOPTED;
Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing, ECF No. 42, is DENIED;
Petitioner’s objections to the R&R, ECF No. 43, are OVERRULED;
Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance, ECF No. 50, is DENIED;
Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Amend, ECF No. 51, is GRANTED, and his
additional allegations have been considered as part of this Court’s review;
The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED;
There is no basis for issuance of a certificate of appealability;
The Order dated May 7, 2015, ECF No. 37, is AFFIRMED; and
This case is CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.________
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.
United States District Judge
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?