BROWN v. MOONEY et al

Filing 25

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; BROWN'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL ISSUE. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS FILE CLOSED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 11/15/16. 11/16/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT /:/J.Eo
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAHEEM BROWN,
Petitioner,

No

V 76 20/B

CIVIL ACTION

v.
VINCENT T. MOONEY, et al.,
Respondents

No. 15-1495

ti::- ORDER
ANDNOWthis

/ S-

day of~ 2016, upon careful and

independent consideration of Raheem Brown's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc.
No.1), Raheem Brown's memorandum oflaw (Doc. No. 6), the Commonwealth's
response in opposition (Doc. No. 14), Raheem Brown's petition for permission to file a
second habeas corpus petition (Doc. No. 18), the Commonwealth's response to the
petition for permission to file a second habeas corpus petition (Doc. No. 20), and the
Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret, it is
ORDERED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret is
APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. Brown's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED with
prejudice;
3. 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

ENTERED
~O\J 16 1.0\G
CLERK Or coUf\1

constitutional right[,]" under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), since he has not
demonstrated that "reasonable jurists" would find my "assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000); see United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 262-63 (3d Cir.
2000), abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler, __ U.S. __,
132 S. Ct. 641 (2012); and,
4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this file closed.

BY THE COURT:

.CURTIS JO
. District Judge