THOMAS v. CAMERON et al

Filing 23

ORDER THAT MAGISTRATE JUDGE HART'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED, AND THAT PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS MATTER CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 5/26/15. 5/26/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE' AND E-MAILED.(ky, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTONIO DUPRE THOMAS,
Petitioner
v.
MR. CAMERON, Supt.,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Respondent

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action
No. 14-cv-01629

O R D E R
NOW, this 26th day of May, 2015, upon consideration of
the following documents:
Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, filed
by petitioner pro se on March 19, 2014;
Petitioner’s Memorandum of Law in Support of
Habeas Corpus Petition, which memorandum was
filed November 6, 2014;
Answer of the District Attorney of Chester County
to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which
answer was filed by respondents on November 25,
2014, together with Appendixes A-S;
Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart dated March 11,
2015 and filed March 12, 2015;

it appearing that no objections have been filed to the Report
and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hart; 1 it further
appearing after review of this matter that Magistrate Judge
Hart’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 Hart’s Report and
Recommendation is approved and adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s Petition Under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State
Custody is denied without an evidentiary hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because petitioner has not
met statutory requirements to have his case heard, and no
reasonable jurist could find this procedural ruling debatable, a
certificate of appealability is denied.

1

Petitioner received a Notice accompanying the Report and
Recommendation stating that petitioner was required to file any objections to
the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of service of the Notice
and filing of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Rule 72.1(IV)(b) of
the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Report and Recommendation and the
Notice were filed on March 12, 2015 and were served by mail and email on
March 13, 2015. By my Order signed April 22, 2015 and filed April 23, 2015,
I granted petitioner’s Motion for a 30-Day Extension of Time to File
Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, which motion was filed
March 23, 2015. Any objections were required to be filed on or before
April 27, 2015.
As of the date of this order, petitioner has not filed any
objections to the Report and Recommendation.

-2-

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

BY THE COURT:

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

-3-