RIVERA v. WALSH et al

Filing 12

ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE AND DISMISSED AAS UNTIMELY; AND THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 7/31/14. 8/1/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION

MICHAEL RIVERA,
Petitioner,

v.

No.13-1370

JEROME WALSH, et al.,
Respondents.

ORDER

~rl"'

,.

~Iv....
·:1':-·
By ·-· · · ·· -;.;~. , f'I 1
.,.enc

AND NOW, this 31 51 day of July, 2014, upon careful and iDOependenf·&J.lit;ideration of
the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Respondents' Answer, the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin dated April 24, 2014, and Petitioner's
objections to the Report and Recommendation, and after a thorough and independent review of
the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1.

Petitioner's objections are OVERRULED 1;

2.

The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

3.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED with prejudice and

DISMISSED as untimely; and
4.

There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.

BY THE COURT:
~=•\~TEAED
iJ q G 0 1 2014

GL6~t< OF COURT
Petitioner pleaded guilty to murder in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas on December
14, 2001, in accordance with a negotiated plea agreement. The Report and Recommendation
cogently explained that his habeas petition, deemed filed on February 18, 2013, was filed
approximately nine-years after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(l). Petitioner's objections do not address this glaring procedural defect, and accordingly
do not provide a basis for rejecting the Report and Recommendation.
1