PRICE v. OVERMAYER et al

Filing 20

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL ISSUE. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS FILE CLOSED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 8/15/17. 8/15/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________________
MARVIN PRICE,
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
MICHAEL OVERMYER, et al.,
:
Respondents.
:
____________________________________________:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 15-5352

ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of August, 2017, upon consideration of Marvin Price’s petition
for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1), the Commonwealth’s response to petition for writ of
habeas corpus (Doc. No. 13), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Richard A. Lloret (Doc. No. 14), and the objections thereto (Doc. No. 18.) it is ORDERED that:
1. The Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Richard A.
Lloret are OVERRULED;1
2. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED with
prejudice;
4. No certificate of appealability shall issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) because
“the applicant has [not] made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right[,]” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), since he has not demonstrated that “reasonable
jurists” would find my “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”
In his Objections, Petitioner states that he “objects to the legal conclusions drawn by the United
States Magistrate.” (Pet.’s Objs. p. 1.) Petitioner, however, does not identify any purported errors
in the Report and Recommendation. Rather, he simply restates the basis for his claims.
Magistrate Lloret properly rejected these arguments and found Petitioner’s claims to be lacking
in merit. After reviewing the submissions, I conclude that Petitioner’s arguments lack merit for
the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation.
1

1

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d
256, 262-63 (3d Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S.
Ct. 641 (2012); and,
5. The Clerk of Court shall mark this file closed.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
___________________________
Mitchell S. Goldberg, J.

2