MCCLARIN v. MCGINTLY et al

Filing 12

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET DATED AUGUST 22, 2017 IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED INSOFAR AS IT RECOMMENDS DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 2254 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; PETI TIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WITH ATTACHED ARGUMENTS AND CASE LAW ARE OVERRULED; PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED AS OUTLINED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 10/13/17. 10/16/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER AND EMAILED TO COUNSEL.(jaa, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
OMAR McCLARIN,

CIVIL ACTION
Petitioner,

v.
THOMAS McGINTLY,
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE
COUNTY OF KEVIN STEELE, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF JOSH SHAPIRO,
Respondents.

NO. 17-1092

ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2017, upon consideration of Petition Under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by pro so petitioner, Omar McClarin (Document
No. 1, filed March 10, 2017), the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret dated August 22, 2017, pro se petitioner’s Objections
to the Report and Recommendation with Attached Arguments and Case Law (Document No. 11,
filed October 10, 2017, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Richard A.

Lloret dated August 22, 2017, is APPROVED and ADOPTED insofar as it recommends
dismissal of the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by pro so
petitioner, Omar McClarin, as untimely filed, and REJECTED in all other respects;
2.

Pro se petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation with Attached

Arguments and Case Law are OVERRULED;
3.

Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by pro so

petitioner, Omar McClarin, is DISMISSED as time barred; and,

4.

A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not

debate the propriety of this Court’s procedural ruling with respect to petitioner=s claims. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
BY THE COURT:

/ s Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.

2