LAWSON v. OVERMYER et al

Filing 32

ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WELLS' REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARE OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WELLS' REPORT AND RECOMMINDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDE RED THAT THE WITHIN PETITION IS DISMISSED WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 8/27/2015. 9/1/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER AND E-MAILED.(lbs, )

FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TYREE LAWSON,

Petitioner

v.
SUPERINTENDENT of SCI FOREST M.
OVERMYER ET AL.;
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY; and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Respondents

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

AUG 31 2015
MICHAELE. KUNZ. Gier.'\
By
DsJ. C!:?r'.<

Civil Action
No. 14-cv-00135

I

I
I
I
I

,p,.oRDER
NOW, this

'l. 7 day

of August,

2015, upon consideration

of the following documents:

{1)

Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody, which petition
was filed by petitioner Tyree Lawson pro se on
January 2, 2014 1 ("Petition"), together with
various supporting documents (jointly, Document 1);

(2)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus, which memorandum was filed by
petitioner pro se on March 17, 2014 ("Petitioner's Memorandum"), together with Exhibits A
through Z to Petitioner's Memorandum (jointly,
Document 3-1) ; 2

Although the within Petition was filed with the Clerk of Court on
January 9, 2014, petitioner certified, under penalty of perjury, that he
placed the Petition in the prison mailing system on January 2, 2014.
Thus,
it is treated as having been filed January 2, 2014 pursuant to the prison
mailbox rule.
Burns v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998); Rule 3{d)
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Habeas Cases in the United States
District Courts.
On March 17, 2014 petitioner filed a Motion for Acceptance of
(Document 3)
Accompanying Memorandum by In Forma Pauper is [] & Mailbox Rule.
(Footnote 2 continued):

( 3)

Respondent/Commonweal th' s Response in Opposition
to Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus, which
response was filed October 3, 2014 (Document 15)
("Commonwealth's Response"), together with
Exhibits A through C to the Commonwealth's
Response (jointly, Document 15-1);

(4)

[Petitioner's] Objection to Filed State Court
Record and Request for Copies of Each Document
Filed for Authentication and/or Certified List
Detailing All Documents Individually, which
objection was filed November 17, 2014 (Document 19);

(5)

Petitioner's Offer of Proof Demonstrating the
Last State Court's Trial Record, which offer of
proof was filed December 12, 2014, together with
a copy of a letter dated February 19, 2014 from
the Montgomery County Clerk of Courts and Filings
Information concerning petitioner's state court
proceedings (jointly, Document 20);

{6}

Addendum to Petitioner's Objection to the State
Court's Filed Record and Request for Copies of
Each Document and/or Certified List Detailing All
Documents Individually for Authentication
Purpose, which addendum was filed by petitioner
prose December 29, 2014 ("Petitioner's Addendum
to Objection to Record"), together with Exhibits
A through G to Petitioner's Addendum to Objection
to Record {jointly, Document 24);

(7)

Petitioner's Response to Respondents' Answer,
which response was filed January 9, 2015 ("Petitioner's Response"), together with Exhibits A
through GG to Petitioner's Response (jointly,
Document 26);

(Continuation of footnote 2):
("Motion for Acceptance"} with Petitioner's Memorandum and Exhibits
z to Petitioner's Memorandum attached to the Motion for Acceptance.
United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells granted the
for Acceptance by Order dated and filed February 26, 2015 (Document
Petitioner's Memorandum and the exhibits thereto were considered by
trate Judge Wells and have been considered by me.

-2-

A through
Chief
Motion
28) .

Magis-

(8)

Report and Recommendation of Chief United States
Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells dated
and filed February 26, 2015 (Document 27); and

(9)

Petitioner's Objection to the Report and
Recommendation, which objection was filed
March 16, 2015 ("Petitioner's Objection"),
together with the Appendix to Petitioner's
Objection (jointly, Document 31);

and upon consideration of the Pennsylvania state court record
which was filed electronically in this court on Septernb_er 17,
2014

(Documents 11 through 11-222) ; 3 it appearing that peti-

tioner's objections to Chief Magistrate Judge Wells' 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 Chief Magistrate Judge Wells' Report and Recomrnendation correctly determined the legal and factual issues presented in the petition for habeas corpus relief,
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's objections to Chief
Magistrate Judge Wells' Report and Recommendation are overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Chief Magistrate Judge
Wells' Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted.

4

The state court record was filed electronically pursuant to my
Order dated September 12, 2014 and filed September 15, 2014 (Document 7).
When objections are filed to a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, I am 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.l{IV) (b)
of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the
(Footnote 4 continued):

-3-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the within Petition is
dismissed without an evidentiary hearing.

{Continuation of footnote 2

Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Furthermore, district judges have wide
latitude regarding how they treat the reconunendations 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 nova determination, rather than a
de nova hearing, Congress intended to permit district court judges, in the
exercise of their sound discretion, the option of placing whatever reliance
they 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.
See Raddatz, supra.
Here, Petitioner's Objection purports to refute the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety.
Petitioner also raises objections regarding
both the Pennsylvania state court's procedural record and the appointment of
stand-by trial counsel by the state court.
To the extent that Petitioner's Objection contests the conclusions presented in the Report and Recommendation, I find that petitioner
merely restates his underlying constitutional claims.
Magistrate Judge Wells
correctly determined petitioner's first and second claims to be barred by
Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976), and
petitioner's third, fourth, and fifth claims to be procedurally defaulted.
(See Report and Recommendation at pages 3-5 concerning first and second
claims, pages 5-9 concerning third, fourth, and fifth claims.)
To the extent
that petitioner objects to those determinations, his objections are overruled.
Petitioner's additional objection concerning the state court
record is without merit.
Despite petitioner's assertion to the contrary, the
state court record was not filed secretly.
Rather, pursuant to my September 12, 2014 Order, the state court record was filed electronically on this
court's docket.
Moreover, petitioner attached numerous state court documents
to his various filings in this action.
Accordingly, petitioner's objection
that he has been denied "equal protection, due process and an effective legal
reviewn (Petitioner's Objection at page 2) is overruled.
Petitioner's assertion that he was denied prose status through
the State Court's "forced" appointment of counsel (Petitioner's Objection at
page 4) is also without merit.
Petitioner's own exhibits demonstrate that he
not only assented to appointment of stand-by trial counsel from the state
court, but actually requested assistance from such counsel.
(Appendix to
Petitioner's Objection at Pages 35, 40, 42, and 56.)
Upon review of the Report and Recommendation, together with de
nova review of this matter, I conclude that the Report and Recommendation
correctly determines the legal and factual issues raised by the petitioner.
Accordingly, I approve and adopt Magistrate Judge Wells' Report and Recommendation and overrule Petitioner's Objection to the Report and Recommendation

-4-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is denied.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall
mark this case closed for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

nited States District Judge

Because petitioner has not shown the denial of a federal constitutional right and has not met statutory requirements to have his case heard,
and that no reasonable jurist could find this ruling debatable, a certificate
of appealability is denied.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c) (2); Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604, 146 L.Ed.2d 542, 555 (2000).

-5-