MORRIS v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED AS SET FORTH IN THIS COURT'S ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM AND THE CAVEAT CONTAINED THEREIN AT SECTION IV(B)(5); PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR WRIT HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; PETITIONER'S RENEWED REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS DENIED AS MOOT; NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL ISSUE UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 2253(C)(1)(A) ETC. AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 1/24/17. 1/24/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER, EMAILED TO COUNSEL AND COPY TO LEGAL.(jaa, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AND NOW this 24th day of January 2017, upon careful and independent consideration of
Ernest Morris’ Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus and supporting memoranda of law (Doc. Nos.
1-6, 4 and 8), the Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 17), Morris’ Reply (Doc. No. 20), the
Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret (Doc. No. 23),
Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. No. 25), the Commonwealth’s Response to Petitioner’s Objections
(Doc. No. 32), Petitioner’s Traverse (Doc. No. 33), and Petitioner’s Notice of Certain Facts
(Doc. No. 34), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret is
APPROVED and ADOPTED as set forth in this Court’s accompanying
Memorandum and the caveat contained therein at Section IV(B)(5);
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED
Petitioner’s renewed request for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. No. 21), is
DENIED as moot;
No Certificate of Appealability shall issue under 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(A) because “the applicant has [not] made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right[,]” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2),
since he has not demonstrated that “reasonable jurists” would find my
Page 1 of 2
“assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); and,
The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
_/s/ C. Darnell Jones, II J.
Page 2 of 2
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?