STANSBURY v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Filing 24

ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2241, AND AFTER REVIEW OF THE WELL-REASONED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET, IT IS ORDERED THAT UPON DE NOVO REVIEW, TH E PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS PREMATURELY FILED. THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPE ALABILITY BECAUSE THE PETITIONER HAS NOT MADE A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. THE PETITIONER'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 5 11 ARE DENIED. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 12/21/15. 12/23/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, E-MAILED.(gs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KAREEM STANSBURY,
Petitioner

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,
Respondents

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 14-6500

ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st

day of December, 2015, upon consideration of the petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and after review of the well-reasoned
Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Richard A. Lloret, United States Magistrate
Judge, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Upon de novo review, the petitioner’s Objections are OVERRULED.1

2.

The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED.

3.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice as
prematurely filed.

4.

There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability because the
petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.

5.

The petitioner’s motions for summary judgment (Documents #5 and 11), claiming
a failure of the respondents to respond to his petition, are DENIED.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lawrence F. Stengel
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.

1

Contrary to the petitioner’s objections (Document #22), this petition is premature. As noted by Judge Lloret, the
petitioner is scheduled to be tried in January 2016. The petitioner may seek habeas review should he be convicted
of the charges filed against him, and only after the conviction is final. Accordingly, I will approve and adopt the
Report and Recommendation.