JACKSON v. KERESTES et al

Filing 35

ORDERED THAT JACKSON'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 33 ) ARE OVERRULED. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 23 ) IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. JACKSON;S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE AND DISMISSED WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING. ETC.. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 2/28/2020. 3/3/2020 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(sg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTHONY JACKSON
v.
JOHN KERESTES,
SUPERINTENDENT, et al.

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
No. 15-4882

ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2020, upon careful and independent consideration
of Petitioner Anthony Jackson’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
and after de novo review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Henry S. Perkin and Jackson’s objections, it is ORDERED:
1.
2.

1

Jackson’s objections (Document 33) are OVERRULED. 1
The Report and Recommendation (Document 23) is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

On August 15, 2008, a jury convicted pro se Petitioner Anthony Jackson of attempted murder,
aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy, and related offenses. Jackson was sentenced to an aggregate
term of 15-30 years’ imprisonment. On November 22, 2017, Jackson filed the instant Petition Under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus, asserting five separate claims of ineffective assistance
of counsel. On September 9, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin issued a Report
and Recommendation (R&R) recommending Jackson’s habeas petition be denied with prejudice
and dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. The R&R found each of Jackson’s claims was
procedurally defaulted and lacked merit. On November 15, 2019, Jackson filed objections to the
R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court reviews de novo “those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
Jackson’s objections to the R&R are duplicative of the arguments he raised in his habeas
petition and accompanying memorandum of law. See, e.g., Objs. 10 (“Jackson stands on the claim
presented and argue[d] in his original habeas corpus petition and memorand[u]m of [l]aw.”). In the
R&R, Judge Perkin gave careful and thorough consideration to Jackson’s arguments. After de novo
review of the record, the R&R, and Jackson’s objections, the Court finds no error in the R&R’s
analysis of Jackson’s claims. Insofar as Jackson asserts the R&R misconstrues his claims, the Court
finds no merit to this claim. Accordingly, the Court overrules Jackson’s objections for the reasons
stated in the R&R.

3.

Jackson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Document 1)

is DENIED with prejudice and DISMISSED without an evidentiary hearing.
4.

Jackson having failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right, i.e., that reasonable jurists would disagree with this Court’s procedural and substantive rulings
on Jackson’s claims, a certificate of appealability shall not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Juan R. Sánchez
Juan R. Sánchez, C.J.

2