MCLEARY v. FERGUSON et al
ORDER THAT MC LEARY'S OBJECTIONS (DOC. 31) ARE OVERRULED; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 26) IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. NO. 1) IS DENIED; AND THERE HAS BEEN NO SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WARRANTING THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 6/29/17. 6/30/17 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
MICHAEL FREEMAN MCLEARY
TAMMY FERGUSON, et al.
AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2017, upon careful and independent consideration of
Petitioner Michael Freeman McLeary’s 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 Linda K. Caracappa and McLeary’s objections thereto, it is ORDERED:
McLeary’s objections (Document 31) are OVERRULED1;
The Report and Recommendation (Document 26) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
McLeary’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document 1) is DENIED; and
There has been no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right
warranting the issuance of a certificate of appealability.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Juan R. Sánchez .
Juan R. Sánchez, J.
In her Report and Recommendation (R&R), Judge Caracappa recommends denial of McLeary’s
habeas petition on the basis of procedural default. On February 14, 2017, McLeary filed objections
to the R&R, which are wholly unintelligible and in no way address the merits of his claim or the
R&R. In any event, because the Court agrees with the R&R that McLeary’s claims are
procedurally defaulted, it will overrule the objections and deny the petition.
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?