ANDERSON v. COMMONWEALTH OF PA. et al

Filing 10

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE COURT REMEDIES AND A CERTIFIATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE; THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 1/23/14. 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
KENARD ANDERSON
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-4389

ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2014, upon careful and independent consideration
of Petitioner Kenard Anderson’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 and the response thereto, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Reuter, to which no objections have been filed,1 it is
ORDERED:
1.

The Report and Recommendation (Document 8) is APPROVED and

ADOPTED;2
2.

Anderson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Document 1) is DISMISSED

without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies; and

1

The Report and Recommendation was sent to all parties of record on December 13, 2013,
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

As set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Anderson has not demonstrated either that he
has exhausted his federal constitutional claim regarding his speedy trial rights or that
extraordinary circumstances are present, as required for this Court to exercise its pretrial habeas
corpus jurisdiction. See Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 443, 446 (3d Cir. 1975) (holding the
alleged denial of a petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is not “an extraordinary circumstance
sufficient to dispense with the exhaustion requirement”).

3.

A certificate of appealability shall not issue, as Anderson has not demonstrated

that reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of this procedural ruling. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mark this case CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

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

2

.