LEAK v. CLARK et al

Filing 134

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. THE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 60(B) (ECF NO. 94) IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. LEAKS REMAINING MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 109, 110, 123, 124, 125) ARE DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. THERE IS NO BASIS TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 1/29/25. 1/29/25 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND COUNSEL; E-MAILED.(amas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM LEAK,

CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff,

v.
SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL CLARK,
et al., THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF
THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendants.

NO. 17-2608

ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of January, 2025, upon consideration of the
Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Final Order and Judgment Under Rule 60(b) (ECF No. 94)
there being no timely objection thereto, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Pamela A. Carlos (ECF 133), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. The Motion for Relief from Final Order and Judgment Under Rule 60(b) (ECF
No. 94) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE;
3. Leak’s Remaining Motions (ECF Nos. 109, 110, 123, 124, 125) are
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; and
4. There is no basis to issue a certificate of appealability.
The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
S/ WENDY BEETLESTONE
_______________________________
WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.