MCBRIDE v. GLUNT

Filing 17

ORDERED THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED AS MOOT AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 10/19/17. 10/20/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER AND EMAILED TO COUNSEL.(jaa, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY MCBRIDE
v.
STEVEN R. GLUNT
SUPERINTEND OF THE STATE
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT
HOUTZDALE, et al.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-3077

ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of October, 2017, upon careful and independent consideration
of Petitioner Jeffrey McBride’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, and after de novo review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells, to which no objections have been filed,1 it is ORDERED:
•

The Report and Recommendation (Document 15) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

•

McBride’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document 3) is DISMISSED as
moot2; and

1

The Report and Recommendation was sent to all parties of record on April 10, 2017, together
with a Notice from the Clerk of Court advising the parties of their obligation to file any
objections within 14 days after service of the Notice. See Local R. Civ. P. 72.1 IV(b) (“Any
party may object to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings, recommendations or report under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and subsections 1(c) and (d) of this Rule within fourteen (14) days after
being served with a copy thereof.”). As of today’s date, no objections have been filed.
2

In his habeas petition, McBride seeks relief from his sentence of mandatory life imprisonment
without parole based on Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 465 (2012), in which the Supreme
Court held a sentence of “mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time
of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual
punishments.’” In addition to filing the instant federal habeas petition, McBride also sought
relief based on Miller in state court by filing a petition pursuant to the Pennsylvania Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). Although the PCRA court denied the petition, on appeal, the
Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the PCRA court’s denial of relief on McBride’s Miller
claim, vacated McBride’s life sentence, and remanded the case for resentencing. See
Commonwealth v. McBride, No. 2187 EDA 2015, 2017 WL 362616, at *6-7 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan.

•

The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Juan R. Sánchez
Juan R. Sánchez, J.

.

25, 2017). McBride thereafter filed a petition for allowance of appeal in the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court, presumably to challenge the denial of habeas relief on his non-Miller claims, but
the Supreme Court denied the petition on September 8, 2017. See Commonwealth v. McBride,
No. CP-51-CR-0013114-2007 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl.), docket available at https://ujsportal.pacourts.
us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-51-CR-0013114-2007
(reflecting
the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s September 8, 2017, denial of McBride’s petition for allowance of
appeal). As the Magistrate Judge recognized, because the Superior Court has already vacated
McBride’s sentence pursuant to Miller and remanded the case for resentencing, granting
McBride the same relief he seeks in this Court, his federal habeas petition is now moot.
2