OYOLA v. FISHER et al

Filing 18

ORDERED THAT MAGISTRATE JUDGE HEYS REPORT ANDRECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS TOMAGISTRATE JUDGE HEYS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARE OVERRULED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE PETITION FORH ABEAS CORPUS RELIEF IS DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT BECAUSE PETITIONER FAILS TODEMONSTRATE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, AND NO REASONABLEJURIST COULD FIND THIS RULING DEBATABLE, A CERTIFICATE OFAPPEALABILITY IS DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF COURT SHALLCLOSE THIS MATTER FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 3/15/2016. 3/16/2016 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED.(lbs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ULYSEES OYOLA,
Petitioner,
v.
MR. JON FISHER,
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE
COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Respondents

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action
No. 2012-cv-6093

O R D E R
NOW, this 15th day of March, 2016, upon consideration
of the following documents:
(1)

(2)

Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, which response was filed on behalf of
respondents on March 15, 2013;

(3)

1

Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody,
filed by petitioner Ulysees Oyola pro se on
October 25, 2012;1

(Memorandum) in Support of Petition for
Relief From Conviction or Sentence by Person
in State Custody (under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for
a Writ of Habeas Courpus [sic], which
memorandum was filed by petitioner pro se on
March 28, 2013;

Mr. Oyola’s original petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed
in this court on October 25, 2012. However, the petition itself indicates
that it was signed by petitioner on October 6, 2012 and placed in the prison
mailing system on October 9, 2012. Thus, giving petitioner the benefit of the
prison mailbox rule, (See Burns v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 1998) and
Rule 3(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts), I consider October 9, 2012 the filing date of Mr. Oyola’s
original petition.

(4)

Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey dated and
filed July 24, 2013;

(5)

Objections to Report and Recommendation filed
by petitioner pro se on September 19, 2013;

it appearing that petitioner’s objections to Magistrate Judge
Hey’s Report and Recommendation are a restatement of the issues
raised in his underlying petition for habeas corpus relief and
are without merit; it further appearing after de novo review of
this matter that Magistrate Judge Hey’s Report and Recommendation
correctly determined the legal and factual issues presented in
the petition for habeas corpus relief,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hey’s Report and
Recommendation is approved and adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s objections to
Magistrate Judge Hey’s Report and Recommendation are overruled.2

2

When objections are filed to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, we are required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report, findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge to which there are objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rule 72.1(IV)(b)
of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, district judges have wide
latitude regarding how they treat recommendations of the magistrate judge.
See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424
(1980).
Indeed, by providing for a de novo determination, rather than a de
novo hearing, Congress intended to permit a district judge, in the exercise of
the court’s sound discretion, the option of placing whatever reliance the
court chooses to place on the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
conclusions. I may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part any of the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Raddatz, supra.
As noted above, I conclude that petitioner’s objections to
Magistrate Judge Hey’s Report and Recommendation are nothing more than a
restatement of the underlying claims contained in his petition for habeas
(Footnote 2 continued):

-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pro se petition for
habeas corpus relief is denied without a hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because petitioner fails to
demonstrate denial of a constitutional right, and no reasonable
jurist could find this ruling debatable, a certificate of
appealability is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall
close this matter for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ JAMES KNOLL GARDNER
James Knoll Gardner
United States District Judge

(Continuation of footnote 2);
corpus. Moreover, upon review of the Report and Recommendation, together with
de novo review of this matter, I conclude that the Report and Recommendation
correctly determines the legal issues raised by petitioner.
Accordingly, I approve and adopt Magistrate Judge Hey’s Report and
Recommendation and overrule petitioner’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation.

-3-