EDNEY v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Filing 36

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (14-4994 DOC. NO. 30; 15-956 DOC. NO. 34) ARE APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (14-4994 DOC. NOS. 4, 15; 15-956 DOC. NO. 4) ARE DENIED; PETITIONER'S REQUEST THAT CHARGES BE DI SMISSED, FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUSEL AND FOR REMOVAL OF THE STATE PROSECUTION TO THE THIS FORUM ARE DENIED; PETITIONERS'S MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (14-4994 DOC. NO. 29) IS DENIED; A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE; THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THSES CASES FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 1/19/16. 1/20/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ORLANDO EDNEY,
Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-4994

v.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,
Respondents.
ORLANDO EDNEY,
Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 15-956

v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER

AND NOW, this 19th day of January 2016, upon careful and independent consideration
of the Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Civil Action No. 14-4994, Doc. Nos. 4, 15; Civil
Action No. 15-956, Doc. No. 4), and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey (Civil Action No. 14-4994, Doc. No. 30; Civil Action
No. 15-956, Doc. No. 34), it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey
(Civil Action No. 14-4994, Doc. No. 30; Civil Action No. 15-956, Doc. No. 34) is
APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. The Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Civil Action No. 14-4994, Doc. Nos. 4, 15;
Civil Action No. 15-956, Doc. No. 4) are DENIED;

3. Petitioner’s requests that the state charges be dismissed, for the appointment of counsel,
and for removal of the state prosecution to this forum are DENIED;
4. Petitioner’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Civil Action No. 14-4994, Doc. No.
29) is DENIED;
5. A Certificate of Appealability SHALL NOT issue because, based on the analysis
contained in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, as approved and
adopted by this Court, a reasonable jurist could not conclude that the Court is incorrect in
denying and dismissing the Habeas Petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000); and
6. The Clerk of Court shall close these cases for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joel H. Slomsky
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J.

2