PARKS v. GLUNT et al
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PAUL PARKS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2254, AND THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH T. HEY, AND NO OBJECTIONS HAVING BEEN FILED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE REPORT AND R ECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. THE PETITION IS STAYED AND PLACED IN SUSPENSE UNTIL THE EXHAUSTION OF STATE POST-CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS. ACTION ON PRO SE PETITIONER'S MOTION TO AMEND HABEAS CORPUS IS STAYED AND PLACED IN SUSPENSE. PRO SE PETITIONER SHALL NOTIFY THE COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE CONCLUSION OF STATE POST-CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 11/19/15. 11/25/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, E-MAILED.(gs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE
COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2015, upon consideration of Petition Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by pro se petitioner, Paul Parks,
the record in this case, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth T. Hey dated September 29, 2015, no objections having been filed, IT IS ORDERED as
The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey
dated September 29, 2015, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
The Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State
Custody filed by pro se petitioner, Paul Parks, is STAYED and PLACED in SUSPENSE until the
exhaustion of state post-conviction proceedings;
Action on pro se petitioner’s Motion Requesting Leave to Amend Habeas Corpus
Petition is STAYED and PLACED in SUSPENSE; and,
Pro se petitioner shall notify the Court within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of state
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., 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?