GARCIA v. MASON et al

Filing 19

ORDER THAT THE COURT'S NOVEMBER 13, 2024 ORDER (ECF NO. 17) IS VACATED. THE PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 18) ARE OVERRULED. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED, WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING; AND A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IS DENIED. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE KELLEY BRISBON HODGE ON 11/21/2024. 11/22/2024 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(ahf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SAMUEL GARCIA,

CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner,

v.
BERNADETTE MASON, et al.,
Respondents.

NO. 23-3913
ORDER

AND NOW, this 21st day of November, 2024, upon consideration of the Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 2), the Commonwealth’s Response (ECF No. 14), Petitioner’s
Traverse (ECF No. 15), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Carol Sandra Moore Wells (ECF No. 16), and Petitioner’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 18), is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Court’s November 13, 2024 Order (ECF No. 17) is VACATED. 1
2. The Petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) are
OVERRULED. 2
3. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED;
4. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED, without an evidentiary
hearing; and

The Court filed its Order adopting Judge Wells’ R&R at the conclusion of the 14-day period in which
Petitioner could file his objections. However, Petitioner’s objections, which were sent by mail, did not reach the
Court until November 15, 2024. Petitioner mailed his objections on November 6, 2024, thus, the objections were
timely filed. The Court now vacates the original order and issues the present Order having considered Petitioner’s
objections.
2
Petitioner's Objections to Judge Wells’ Report and Recommendation largely restate the issues which
Petitioner presented in his habeas petition and traverse. As Judge Wells’ Report and Recommendation correctly and
comprehensively addressed the issues of whether equitable tolling is applicable and whether an evidentiary hearing
is necessary, I conclude that Petitioner's objections are overruled.
1

5. Petitioner has neither shown denial of a federal constitutional right, nor established that
reasonable jurists would disagree with this court’s procedural disposition of his claims.
Consequently, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Kelley B. Hodge
HODGE, KELLEY B., J.

2