MANLEY v. GILMORE et al
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; MANLEY'S OBJECTIONS (DOC. NO. 28) ARE OVERRULED; MANLEY'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. NO. 1) IS DENIED; AND THERE HAS BEEN NO SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL O F A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WARRANTING THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 7/7/17. 7/7/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT GILMORE, et al.
AND NOW, this 7th day of July, 2017, upon careful and independent consideration of
Petitioner Levoin Manley’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and after
de novo review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacob P.
Hart and Manley’s objections thereto, it is ORDERED:
Manley’s objections (Document 28) are OVERRULED1;
The Report and Recommendation (Document 25) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
Manley’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document 1) is DENIED; and
There has been no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right
warranting the issuance of a certificate of appealability.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED.
In May 2015, Manley filed a pro se federal habeas petition asserting thirteen grounds for relief,
consisting mostly of claims of ineffective assistance of trial, appellate, or PCRA counsel, as well
as claims of trial court error, prosecutorial misconduct, and insufficient evidence to support his
conviction. On February 24, 2016, Judge Hart issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R)
thoroughly addressing each of Manley’s claims and recommending denial of his petition. Judge
Hart found all but three of Manley’s claims procedurally defaulted or not cognizable under § 2254.
Judge Hart found the remaining claims—prosecutorial misconduct, sufficiency of the evidence,
and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate witnesses—meritless, as Manley
failed to establish, in each instance, the state court’s rulings were contrary to, or an unreasonable
application of, federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Manley has filed twelve objections to the R&R—each restating, without more, a claim
asserted in his original petition. Manley offers no further argument supporting his claims, and he
wholly fails to address any aspect of the R&R. This Court finds no reason to depart from Judge
Hart’s well-reasoned analysis of Manley’s claims, and after careful and independent consideration
of Manley’s petition and his objections, agrees with Judge Hart’s recommendation to deny the
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Juan R. Sánchez
Juan R. Sánchez, 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?