ELLISON v. GARMAN et al
ORDER THAT ELLISON'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE HEFFLEY'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; ELLISON'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL ISSUE; THIS CASE SHALL BE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPERT ON 10/31/17. 10/31/17 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
MARK GARMAN, et al.,
AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2017, upon consideration of the Petition for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus and accompanying Memorandum of Law, (ECF Nos. 1 & 7),
Respondents’ Response in Opposition, (ECF No. 18), the Report and Recommendation of
U.S. Magistrate Judge Marilyn Heffley, (ECF No. 19), and Ellison’s Objections, (ECF
No. 28), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Ellison’s objections are OVERRULED and Magistrate Judge Heffley’s Report
and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. Ellison’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED
3. No certificate of appealability shall issue;1
4. This case shall be CLOSED for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gerald J. Pappert
GERALD J. PAPPERT, J.
Reasonable jurists would not debate the Court’s disposition of petitioner’s claims. See Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
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?