KINT v. PITKINS et al
ORDERED THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; KINT'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED; KINT HAVING FAILED TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE AND THIS CASE SHALL REMAIN CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 12/21/16. 12/22/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER AND EMAILED TO COUNSEL.(jaa, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TYSON A. KINT
MR. PATRICK PITKINS
SUPERINTENDENT, et al.
AND NOW, this 21st day of December, 2016, it is ORDERED the Court’s December 16,
2016, Order in the above-captioned case (Document 25) is VACATED.
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 further ORDERED:
The Report and Recommendation (Document 23) is APPROVED and
Kint’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document 2) is DENIED; and
Kint having failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right, a certificate of appealability shall not issue.
This case shall remain CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Juan R. Sánchez
Juan R. Sánchez, J.
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?