GINES v. GARMAN et al
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE; AND THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 2/2/17. 2/3/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARK GARMAN, et al.,
AND NOW, this 2nd day of February, 2017, upon careful and independent consideration of
the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and after review of the thorough and well-reasoned Report
and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Marilyn Heffley, IT IS HEREBY
The report and recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 1
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice;
A certificate of appealability WILL NOT ISSUE; and
The Clerk is directed to mark this case CLOSED.
BY THE COURT
/s/ Lawrence F. Stengel
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.
Petitioner Andrew Gines brings this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. On June 28, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Marilyn Heffley issued a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the petition be denied and dismissed. Petitioner filed a Rebuttal to the
Report and Recommendation on August 11, 2016 (Docket No. 12), and subsequently filed an Addendum on
August 31, 2016 (Docket No. 13). The arguments set forth in those documents do not address the basis for
denial and dismissal of the petition set forth in the Report and Recommendation; specifically, that the
petition is untimely and that Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. I will therefore approve and adopt
the Report and Recommendation, and dismiss the petition with prejudice without an evidentiary hearing.
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?