HARRIS v. FERGUSON et al
Filing
26
ORDERED THAT THE PEITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND DISMISSED; NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL ISSUE; THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD A. MCHUGH ON 12/4/18. 12/6/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION
TYRIRK HARRIS
v.
TAMMY FERGUSON, et al.
NO.
17-CV-01718
ORDER
This 4th day of December2018, upon careful and independent consideration of
Petitioner Tyrirk Harris' Objections, the objections are OVERRULED. With one
exception, the objections repeat arguments properly dealt with in the Report and
Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret. Plaintiff's argument that
Judge Lloret overlooked his argument that the Commonwealth failed to prove malice is
rejected for two reasons. First, to the extent this argument is part of a claim of actual
innocence, after review of the record, I find such an argument futile. Second, to the
extent that Petitioner maintains he advanced such an argument in a supplemental filing,
having reviewed the docket, specifically supplemental ECF filings 4 and 5, I find no
such claim.
Accordingly, following review of the Petition, Responses, Objections, and record,
it is ORDERED that:
1.
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret is
APPROVEDandADOPTED;
2. Harris' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED with
prejudice by separate Judgment, filed contemporaneously with this Order.
See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a); Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 12;
3. No certificate of appealability shall issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)
because "the applicant has [not] made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right[,]" under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), since he has not
demonstrated that "reasonable jurists" would find my "assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 262-63 (3d Cir.
2000), abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134
(2012); and,
4· The Clerk of Court shall mark this file closed.
BY THE COURT:
HON. GERALD A MCHUGH
U.S. District Judge
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?