MCDANIELS v. COLEMAN et al

Filing 24

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET DATED DECEMBER 29, 2015 IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PRO SE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PETITION IS DENIED; THE PETIT ION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND DISMISSED AND A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE BECAUSE REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD NOT DEBATE (A) THIS COURT'S DECISION THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A VALID CLAIM OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 3/2/16. 3/3/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER AND EMAILED TO COUNSEL.(jaa, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TYRONE MCDANIELS,
Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
BRIANE COLEMAN, THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF
PHILADELPHIA, and THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
Respondents.

NO. 14-3942

ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of March, 2016, upon careful and independent consideration of
Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Court filed by
pro se petitioner, Tyrone McDaniels, the record in this case, pro se petitioner’s Motion for Stay
and Abeyance of Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition, and the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret dated December 29, 2015, no objections
having been filed, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Richard A.

Lloret dated December 29, 2015, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2.

Pro se petitioner’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance of Writ of Habeas Corpus

Petition is DENIED;
3.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by pro

se petitioner, Tyrone McDaniels, is DENIED and DISMISSED;
4.

A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not

debate (a) this Court’s decision that the petition does not state a valid claim of the denial of a

constitutional right, or (b) the propriety of this Court’s procedural rulings with respect to
petitioner=s claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.

2