BROWN v. TICE et al
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. NO. 1) IS DENIED; A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE; THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 10/11/17. 10/12/17 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
SUPERINTENDENT TICE, et al.,
AND NOW, this 11th day of October 2017, upon consideration of Petitioner’s Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1), Respondents’ Response to the Petition (Doc. No. 25),
the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa (Doc.
No. 26), and that the Report and Recommendation has not been objected to by the parties, it is
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 26) is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED.
3. A Certificate of Appealability SHALL NOT issue because, based on the analysis
contained in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, as approved and
adopted by this Court, a reasonable jurist could not conclude that the Court is incorrect in
denying and dismissing the Habeas Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000).
4. The Clerk of Court shall close this case for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT:
/ s / J oel H. S l om s k y
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, 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?