GILLIAM v. SCI HUNTINGDON et al

Filing 11

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT IS GRANTED; RESPONDENTS' APPLICATION FOR STAY IS DENIED AS MOOT; PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED AS MOOT; AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 12/7/18. 12/10/18 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
DEMETRIUS GILLIAM,
Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
SCI HUNTINGDON, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Respondents.

NO. 17-2622

ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2018, upon consideration of Petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by pro se petitioner, Demetrius Gilliam
(Document No. 1, filed June 9, 2017), Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss as Moot/Application for
Stay (Document No. 7, filed February 12, 2018), the record in this case, and the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge dated September 12,
2018, there being no objections, and the time for filing objections having passed, IT IS
ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R.

Strawbridge dated September 12, 2018, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2.

Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss as Moot is GRANTED on the ground that the

relief sought in the Petition, release on parole, was granted and pro se petition was placed on
parole January 20, 2018;
3.

Respondents’ Application for Stay is DENIED AS MOOT;

4.

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

petitioner, Demetrius Gilliam, is DISMISSED AS MOOT; and,
5.

The Clerk of Court shall MARK this case CLOSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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 claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.

2