DAVIS v. SUPERINTENDENT, SCI DALLAS et al

Filing 21

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH T. HEY DATED AUGUST 22, 2016 IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARE OVERRULED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE REPORT AND RECO MMENDATION WITH WHICH THIS COURT AGREES; THE PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 2254 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY PETITIONER IS DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FILED AND A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE BECAUSE REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD NOT DEBATE THE PROPRIETY OF THIS COURT'S PROCEDURAL RULING WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER'S CLAIMS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 11/28/16. 11/29/16 ENTERED AND COPIES EMAILED TO COUNSEL.(jaa, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EDWARD DAVIS,

CIVIL ACTION
Petitioner,

v.
SUPERINTENDENT, SCI-DALLAS, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Respondents.

NO. 15-6534

ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2016, upon consideration of Petition Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by petitioner, Edward Davis, the record in this case, the Report
and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey dated August 22, 2016,
petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Response to
Petitioner’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, IT IS ORDERED as
follows:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey

dated August 22, 2016, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2.

The Objections to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED for the reasons

stated in the Report and Recommendation with which this Court agrees;
3.

The Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by petitioner,

Edward Davis, is DISMISSED as untimely filed; and,
4.

A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not

debate the propriety of this Court’s procedural ruling with respect to petitioner=s claims. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.