JOHNSON v. GIROUX et al
ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE THOMAS J. RUETER [DOC. 17] IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THE PETITIONER HAVING FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A REASONABLE JURIST COULD CONCLUDE THAT THE COURT IS INCORRECT IN DISMISSING THE PETITION, THERE IS NO GROUND TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. THE PETITIONER' MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS [DOC. 24] IS DENIED AS MOOT. THE PETITIONERS MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [DOC. 27] IS DENIED AS MOOT. THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 8/29/17. 8/30/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E-MAILED.(er, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL LEVANT JOHNSON
C.A. NO. 15-4242
NANCY GIROUX, SUPERINTENDENT, et al.
AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2017, upon careful consideration of the
petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the response, the
thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Thomas J. Rueter, petitioner’s objections to the report and recommendation, it is
hereby ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's objections are OVERRULED.
2. The report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter
[Doc. 17] is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4. The petitioner having failed to demonstrate that a reasonable jurist could conclude
that the court is incorrect in dismissing the petition, there is no ground to issue a
certificate of appealability.
5. The petitioner’s motion for transcripts [Doc. 24] is DENIED as moot.
6. The petitioner’s motion for writ of mandamus [Doc. 27] is DENIED as moot.
7. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mark this case closed.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl
JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL, 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?