LEAK v. CLARK et al

Filing 80

ORDERED THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT SHALL MARK TH IS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. UPON CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONERS MOTIONS TO COMPEL ECF NOS. 78 & 79 , IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PETITIONERS MOTIONS ARE DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 7/27/20. 7/28/20 ENTERED AND COPIES NOT MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED.(jpd, )

Case 2:17-cv-02608-WB Document 80 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 1

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

CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff,

v.
SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL CLARK,
et al.,
Defendants.

NO. 17-2608

ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2020, upon careful and independent consideration of
the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 50), and after review of the Report
and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice (ECF No. 66) and
Petitioner’s Objections thereto (ECF No. 76), IT IS HERBEY ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED with prejudice;
3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability; and
4. The Clerk of the Court SHALL MARK this case closed for statistical purposes.
Upon consideration of Petitioner’s Motions to Compel (ECF Nos. 78 & 79), IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions are DENIED.1
BY THE COURT:

/s/Wendy Beetlestone, J.
_______________________________
WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.

1

Petitioner filed these motions pro se, seeking to compel his counsel to investigate and brief additional issues. It is
well established that legal strategy is determined by the attorney, not the client. See, e.g., Gov’t of V.I. v.
Weatherwax, 77 F.3d 1425, 1433-34 (3d Cir. 1996) (recognizing counsel’s ultimate authority to make strategic
decisions regarding motions and defenses). The Motions are therefore denied.