JOHNSTON v. COLEMAN et al

Filing 42

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 32 IS APPROVED, ETC. PETITONER'S OBJECTIONS 39 ARE OVERRULED, ETC. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 1 IS DENIED AS TO ALL GROUNDS AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NO ISSUE; AND, THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS ACTION CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 12/21/2018. 12/21/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED.(nds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TYRONE JOHNSTON,
Petitioner,
v.
LAWRENCE MAHALLY,1
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF COUNTY OF
PHILADELPHIA, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Respondents.

: CIVIL ACTION
: NO. 15-04800
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

O R D E R
AND NOW, this 21st day of December, 2018, after review
of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1),
Petitioner’s Memorandum of Law in Support (ECF No. 6),
Respondents’ Response to the Petition (ECF No. 23); Petitioner’s
Traverse to the Response (ECF No. 28); Respondents’ Supplemental
Exhibits (ECF No. 30); the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Lynne Sitarski (ECF No. 32), and
Petitioner’s objections thereto (ECF No. 39), and for the
reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:

See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts, Rule 2.
1

1)

The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 32) is
APPROVED as to Grounds One, Three, Five, Six,
Seven, Eight, and Nine;2

2)

Following de novo review, Petitioner’s Objections
as to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 39)
are OVERRULED, and the Petition as to Grounds Two
and Four is DENIED for the reasons provided in
Memorandum issued this same day;

3)

The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF
No. 1) is DENIED as to all grounds and DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE;

4)

A certificate of appealability shall NOT issue; and

5)

The Clerk of Court shall mark this case as CLOSED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO,
J.

In his Objection to Report and Recommendation,
Petitioner stated that he “objects to the R&R relating to Claims
Two and Four, and concedes to the remaining as presented
therein.” ECF No. 39 ¶ 20.
2

2