GLASS v. WINGARD et al

Filing 26

ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION (DOCKET NOS. 23, 24) ARE DEEMED MOOT. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED. THE PETITION IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. THERE IS NO PRO BABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR ALL PURPOSES, INCLUDING STATISTICS.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 9/21/17. 9/21/17 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
KAREEM GLASS,
Petitioner,
v.
JAY LANE 1 et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 16-154

ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 2017, having considered the Petitioner’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1), Respondents’ Opposition (Docket No. 17),
Petitioner’s Brief in Support (Docket No. 18), U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey’s Report
& Recommendations (Docket No. 21), Petitioner’s Motions for Extension (Docket Nos. 23, 24),
and Petitioner’s Objections (Docket No. 25), and the state court record, it is hereby ORDERED
that:
1. Petitioner’s Motions for Extension (Docket Nos. 23, 24) are deemed MOOT.
Petitioner filed his Objections to the Report and Recommendation shortly after filing
two motions to extend the deadline to file objections.
2. The Report & Recommendations are APPROVED and ADOPTED.
3. Petitioner’s Objections are OVERRULED. 2
4. The Petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.
5. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability. 3
1

As Magistrate Judge Hey notes, Trevor Wingard is listed on the docket in this matter as the
Respondent, but Mr. Glass is currently housed in State Correctional Institute Fayette, where the current
superintendent is Jay Lane.

2

Petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendations, raising substantially the same arguments
that he has raised in his prior filings in this matter. Magistrate Judge Hey thoroughly addressed
Petitioner’s arguments and correctly concluded that Mr. Glass’s appellate waiver was knowing and
voluntary and that, in any event, Mr. Glass was not prejudiced by Mr. McMahon’s ineffectiveness.
Therefore, for the reasons ably outlined by Magistrate Judge Hey in her Report and Recommendations,
the Petition must be denied.
1

6. 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

3

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). There is
no probable cause to issue a certificate in this action.
2