EDWARDS v. KERESTES et al

Filing 18

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS OVERRULED; THE PETITION UNDER 28 USC, SECTION 2254 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND DISMISSED WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING; AND A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE, ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 1/14/16. 1/15/16 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
EVERETT EDWARDS,
Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
JOHN KERESTES, Superintendent,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, and
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,
Respondents.

NO. 15-3573

ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of January, 2016, 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,
Everett Edwards, the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation of United States Chief
Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa dated December 21, 2015, and Objection to the Report and
Recommendation filed by pro se petitioner, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of United States Chief Magistrate Judge Linda

K. Caracappa dated December 21, 2015, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2.

The Objection to the Report and Recommendation filed by pro se petitioner is

OVERRULED on the ground that all of the issues raised in the Objection were addressed in the
Report and Recommendation which the Court approved and adopted. The objections are
OVERRULED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation;
3.

The Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in

State Custody filed by pro se petitioner is DENIED and DISMISSED without an evidentiary
hearing; and,

4.

A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not

debate (a) this Court’s decision that the petition does not state a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right, or (b) the propriety of this Court’s procedural ruling(s) with respect to
petitioner=s claim(s). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.

2