ANDERSON v. SMITH et al

Filing 33

ORDER THAT PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS (DOC. 29 ) ARE OVERRULED. THE PETITIONERS MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURTS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 26 ) IS DENIED. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROL SAND RA MOORE WELLS (DOC. 23 ) IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; MR. ANDERSONS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE BY SEPARATE JUDGMENT, FILED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THIS ORDER. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS FILE CLOSED. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 3/6/25. 3/6/25 ENTERED AND COPIES NOT MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(mas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY S. ANDERSON,
Petitioner,
v.
BARRY SMITH, et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-CV-2893

ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of March, 2025, upon careful and independent consideration of
Petitioner Jeffrey S. Anderson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Report and
Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells, it is ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s Objections [Doc. 29] are OVERRULED.
2. The Petitioner’s motion to correct the record and reconsideration of the Court’s Report
and Recommendations [Doc. 26] is DENIED.
3. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells [Doc.
23] is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
4. Mr. Anderson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is 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;
5.

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:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl
JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL, J.