STEWARD v. COMMON WEALTH et al

Filing 28

ORDER THAT THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 21) IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. NO. 1) IS DENIED. A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE BECAUSE, BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CO NTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AS APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THIS COURT, A REASONABLE JURIST COULD NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE COURT IS INCORRECT IN DENYING AND DISMISSING THE HABEAS PETITION. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 6/8/16. 6/9/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL, 1 COPY TO LEGAL BIN. (pr, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NORMAN T. STEWARD, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-2552 v. COMMON WEALTH, et al., Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, this 8th day of June 2016, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1), the Government’s Response (Doc. No. 11), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge (Doc. No. 21), Petitioner’s Objections to the Report (Doc. No. 24), and the pertinent state court record, and in accordance with the Opinion issued this day, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 21) is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED. 3. A Certificate of Appealability SHALL NOT issue because, based on the analysis contained in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, as approved and adopted by this Court, a reasonable jurist could not conclude that the Court is incorrect in denying and dismissing the Habeas Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000). 4. The Clerk of Court shall close this case for statistical purposes. BY THE COURT: / s / J oel H. S l om s k y JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?