KINT v. PITKINS et al

Filing 25

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. FIGUEROA'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, IS DENIED, AS OUTLINED HEREIN. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 12/16/2016. 12/16/2016 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(amas)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TYSON A. KINT v. MR. PATRICK PITKINS SUPERINTENDENT, et al. : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION No. 15-4788 ORDER AND NOW, this 16th day of December, 2016, upon careful and independent consideration of Petitioner Tyson A. Kint’s pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter, to which no objections have been filed,1 it is ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Document 23) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2. Figueroa’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document 2) is DENIED; and 3. Figueroa having failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability shall not issue. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mark this case CLOSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Juan R. Sánchez Juan R. Sánchez, J. 1 . The Report and Recommendation was sent to all parties of record on November 17, 2016, together with a Notice from the Clerk of Court advising the parties of their obligation to file any objections within 14 days after service of the Notice. See Local R. Civ. P. 72.1 IV(b) (“Any party may object to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings, recommendations or report under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and subsections 1(c) and (d) of this Rule within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof.”). As of today’s date, no objections have been filed.

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?