SULLIVAN v. KUFFMAN et al

Filing 39

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING; THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILTY ; THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISITCAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 7/10/17. 7/11/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KEVIN PATRICK SULLIVAN,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN KUFFMAN, et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 15-5937

ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of July, 2017, having considered the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Kevin Patrick Sullivan (Docket No. 1), the accompanying
Memorandum (Docket No. 23), the Government’s Response thereto (Docket No. 24), Mr.
Sullivan’s Reply (Docket No. 29), U.S. Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells’s Report &
Recommendations (Docket No. 30), Petitioner’s objections thereto (Docket No. 36), and
Petitioner’s state court record, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Report & Recommendations are APPROVED and ADOPTED.1

2.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice without an
evidentiary hearing.

3.

There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.2

1

In his objections, Mr. Sullivan primarily reiterates arguments found in his petition, memorandum,
and reply, and repeatedly asks the Court to reexamine the record, sometimes without specifying what in
the record would support his argument. However, as U.S. Magistrate Judge Wells correctly concluded in
her thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendations, Mr. Sullivan’s claims are either not
cognizable or lack merit.
2

A certificate of appealability may issue only upon “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A petitioner must “demonstrate that reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 210, 230 (3d Cir. 2004). The
Court agrees with U.S. Magistrate Judge Wells that there is no probable cause to issue such a certificate in
this action.
1

4.

The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for all purposes, including
statistics.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gene E.K. Pratter
GENE E.K. PRATTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2