HASSAN v. MAHALLY et al

Filing 33

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS CASE FOR STATISTICAL AND ALL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 8/29/17. 8/30/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER AND EMAILED TO COUNSEL.(jaa, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EARL R. HASSAN,
Petitioner,
v.
LAWRENCE MAHALLY, et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 15-0284

ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2017, upon careful and independent consideration
of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the amended claims (ECF Nos. 1, 13, 20, and 21),
the Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 18), Petitioner’s Reply (ECF No.
19), the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Henry S. Perkin, U.S. Magistrate Judge,
(ECF No. 26), Petitioner’s timely Objections thereto (ECF No. 29), the Response to the
Objections (ECF No. 31), and Petitioner’s Reply (ECF No. 32), it is hereby ORDERED as
follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (ECF No. 1), is DENIED with
prejudice; 1

1

This Court has reviewed Petitioner’s filings, the Government’s responses, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (R&R), and Petitioner’s Objections thereto, as required for “de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and sees no basis for reversing his wellreasoned recommendations. See id. (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”).

Petitioner’s objections merely regurgitate all his original claims and arguments, and amount to a general objection to
the entire R&R. In essence, Petitioner is dissatisfied with the Magistrate Judge’s decision (and the decisions of the
state courts) not because of any discernible error of law or fact, but because the courts simply disagreed with his
interpretation of events. Furthermore, Petitioner’s arguments are difficult to follow and oscillate between
cognizable and non-cognizable habeas claims. As Judge Perkin aptly observed, “it is very difficult from Petitioner’s
filings to decipher precisely what he is attempting argue (sic).” R&R 9. Judge Perkin’s R&R captures the crux of
each of Petitioner’s claims and provides a thorough review of the relevant factual and legal issues. For this Court to
issue a full opinion effectively agreeing with the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations “where only a
general objection to the report is offered would undermine the efficiency the magistrate system was meant to
contribute to the judicial process.” Oser v. Samuels, No. 12-cv-2535, 2013 WL 2351346, at *1 (M.D. Pa. May 22,

3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability; and
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case for statistical and all purposes.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ C. Darnell Jones, II
C. Darnell Jones, II J.

2013) (quoting Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir.1984), aff’d, 537 F. App’x 38 (3d Cir. 2013). Petitioner’s
objections are overruled, and the R&R is approved and adopted in its entirety.