ALSTON v. GILMORE et al

Filing 34

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; THE REQUEST FOR REHEARING IS DENIED; A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE AD THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 12/30/16. 12/30/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KHALIF ALSTON,

CIVIL ACTION
Petitioner,

v.
SUPERINTENDENT ROBERT
GILMORE,
THE DISTRICT OF ATTORNEY OF THE
COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Respondents.

NO. 14-6439

ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 2016, upon consideration of Petition Under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by pro se petitioner, Khalif Alston, the record in
this case, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin
dated August 16, 2016, and pro se petitioner’s Written Objections in Responce [sic] to Report
and Recommendation Filed by Henry S. Perkin, M.J., IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Henry S.

Perkin dated August 16, 2016, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2.

Pro se petitioner’s Written Objections in Responce [sic] to Report and

Recommendation Filed by Henry S. Perkin, M.J., which repeats the arguments made in support
of his Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus and fails to address errors in
the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin dated
August 16, 2016, are OVERRULED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation
which this Court has approved and adopted;

3.

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

petitioner, Khalif Alston is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE;
4.

Pro se petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED on the ground

that all of the evidence relevant to a ruling on the Petition Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 for Writ of

Habeas Corpus is a matter of record;
5.

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, and (b) the propriety of this Court’s procedural ruling with respect to
petitioner=s claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall MARK the case CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.

2