WALL v. LUTHUR et al

Filing 29

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE OBJECTIONS FILED ARE WITHOUT MERIT AND ARE OVERRULED; PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF NO. 1) IS DENIED; AND NO PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS MATTER CLOSED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE NITZA I QUINONES ALEJANDRO ON 1/11/19. 1/11/19 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAMON WALL
Petitioner-prose

CIVIL ACTION

N0.16-6273

v.
MS. LUTHER, et al
Respondents

ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of January 2019, upon careful consideration of the prose petition
for writ of habeas corpus, (the "Petition"), filed by Petitioner Ramon Wall ("Petitioner") pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §2254, [ECF 1], the response filed by Respondents, [ECF 14]; the reply filed by
Petitioner, [ECF 20], the Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") issued on August 23, 2018,
by the Honorable David R. Strawbridge, United States Magistrate Judge (the "Magistrate Judge"),
which recommended that the Petition be denied, [ECF 22], Petitioner's prose objections to the
R&R, [ECF 28], the pleadings, and the available state court record and, after conducting an
independent de novo review of the objections, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2.

The objections filed are without merit and are OVERRULED; 1

In his habeas corpus petition, Petitioner asserted four grounds for relief: ( 1) that his conviction
violates his Fourth Amendment rights because the police had no basis to arrest him; (2) that his procedural
due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by various acts of the PCRA court; (3)
that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated due to perceived defects in the indictment and/or proof
underlying the witness intimidation charge; and (4) that his conviction violated his Sixth Amendment rights
of confrontation, that his plea bargain improperly reflected a mandatory minimum sentence, and that trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the Commonwealth's evidence and for allegedly lying
about a colloquy having taken place. In the twenty-three page R&R, the Magistrate Judge addressed these
contentions and found that all of Petitioner's claims were either procedurally defaulted, non-cognizable, or
lacked merit.
In his objections to the R&R, Petitioner essentially concedes that the Magistrate Judge correctly

found that many of his claims were procedurally defaulted but repeats his argument that the procedural

3.

Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, [ECF 1], is DENIED; and

4.

No probable cause exists to issue a certificate of appealability. 2

The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this matter CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:

Isl Nitza I Quinones Alejandro
NITZA I. QUINONES ALEJANDRO
Judge, United States District Court

default of these claims can be overcome because trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. In making
his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel as an objection, however, Petitioner merely repeats and
rehashes arguments he made in his Petition which were considered and properly rejected by the Magistrate
Judge. As such, Petitioner's objections are nothing more than an attempt to re-litigate various arguments
raised in his Petition and reply. This Court finds that the Magistrate Judge thoroughly reviewed each of
these arguments in the R&R and correctly concluded that Petitioner's claims were non-cognizable,
procedurally defaulted, and/or without merit. This Court has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record
de nova and further finds that no error was committed by the Magistrate Judge in the analysis of Petitioner's
claims. Accordingly, the R&R is adopted and approved in its entirety, and Petitioner's objections are
overruled.
2

A district court may issue a certificate of appealability only upon "a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). 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). For the
reasons set forth, this Court concludes that no probable cause exists to issue such a certificate in this action
because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any constitutional right. Petitioner
has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find this Court's assessment "debatable or wrong."
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Accordingly, there is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

2