SANDERS v. LINK et al

Filing 15

ORDERED THAT THE PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARE OVERRULED; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING; TH ERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR ALL PURPOSES INCLUDING STATISTICAL. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 5/16/18. 5/17/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED.(jpd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LASHAWN SANDERS,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT LINK et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 16-4318

ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of May, 2018, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Lashawn Sanders (Doc. No. 1), the Response thereto (Doc.
No. 7), Petitioner’s Reply (Docket No. 9), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Hey’s Report &
Recommendation (Doc. No. 11), and Petitioner’s Objection to the Report & Recommendation
(Doc. No. 13), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. No. 13) are OVERRULED. 1

2.

The Report & Recommendations are APPROVED and ADOPTED.

3.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED with
prejudice without an evidentiary hearing.

4.

There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability. 2

1

The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Hey that Mr. Sanders’s petition is untimely
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). See Report & Recommendation at 4. Further, the Court agrees with
Magistrate Judge Hey that Mr. Sanders has not alleged facts sufficient to show that he is entitled
to equitable tolling. See id. at 6. To the extent Mr. Sanders’s objections go to the underlying
merits of his case, the Court finds his arguments moot.
2

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). The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Hey that there is no probable cause to
issue such a certificate in this action.
1

5.

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

2