THOMAS v. CAMERON et al
ORDERED THAT PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILTIY. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 3/12/18. 3/13/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTONIO DUPREE THOMAS
MR. CAMERON, SUPT., et al.
AND NOW, this 12th day of March, 2018, upon careful and independent consideration of
the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart, it is hereby ORDERED that:
Petitioner’s objections (Doc. No. 55) are OVERRULED;1
The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 51) is APPROVED and
There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability; and
The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED;
The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED.
As Petitioner has withdrawn Claim 16, he objects only to Judge Hart’s dismissal of Claim 6.
Petitioner does not raise any new arguments or additional facts in his objections. Rather, he
again argues that Claim 6 should not be considered procedurally defaulted because PCRA
counsel was ineffective in failing to raise it. As Judge Hart explained in his Report and
Recommendation, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate prejudice and thus Martinez v. Ryan, 566
U.S. 1 (2012) is not available to excuse the procedural default.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?