JOHNSON v. PHILADELPHIA PRISON SYSTEM et al
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROL SANDRA MOORE WELLS DATED OCTOBER 25, 2016 IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 2241 FILED BY PRO SE PETITIONER IS DISMISSE D AS MOOT; A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE BECAUSE REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD NOT DEBATE THIS COURT'S DECISION THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A VALID CLAIM OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 12/20/16. 12/22/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER AND EMAILED TO COUNSEL.(jaa, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA PRISON SYSTEM,
COMMISSIONER LOUIS GIORLA,
WARDEN M. FARRELL,
DEPUTY WARDEN MAJOR ABELLO, and
UNIT MANAGER LT. McALLISTER,
AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 2016, upon consideration of Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by pro se petitioner, Carlton Johnson, the record in this case, and
the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells dated
October 25, 2016, no objections having been filed, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore
Wells dated October 25, 2016 is APPROVED AND ADOPTED;
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by pro se petitioner, Carlton
Johnson is DISMISSED AS MOOT;
A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate this
Court’s decision that the petition does not state a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.
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?