WARD v. LAMAS et al

Filing 9

AMENDED ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITIONER'S OBJECTION IS OVERRULED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 10/21/13. 10/21/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER.(pr, ) Modified on 10/21/2013 (pr, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
JEFFREY A. WARD,
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
MARIROSA LAMAS, et al.,
:
Respondents.
:
__________________________________________:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 13-CV-3960

AMENDED ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of October, 2013, having considered Petitioner Jeffrey A.
Ward’s objection to the Report and Recommendation prepared by United States Magistrate
Judge Timothy R. Rice, it is hereby ORDERED that this Court’s Order of September 17, 2013
adopting Judge Rice’s Report and Recommendation is AMENDED as follows:
Upon careful and independent consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and
after a review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R.
Rice and the objection to the Report and Recommendation submitted by Petitioner, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
2. The Petitioner’s objection is OVERRULED.1

It is clear from the record that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is untimely. Petitioner’s
objection does not address the timeliness issues raised in Judge Rice’s Report and
Recommendation, nor does it provide the Court with any information that would change the
analysis made in the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, Petitioner’s objection is
overruled.
1

We further find that the second exhibit attached to Petitioner’s objection is styled as a complaint,
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Post
Conviction Relief Act. In order for these claims to move forward, Petitioner would need to file
his complaint in a separate civil action, and either provide the Court with the $400 filing fee, or

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED with prejudice.
4. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability; and
5. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
____________________________
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.

seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915.