SIMMONS v. DIGUELIELMO et al

Filing 22

ORDER THAT JUDGE STRAWBRIDGE'S EXTENSIVE WELL-REASONED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; MR. SIRMON'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED; A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE AS MR. SIRMONS HAS NOT DEMON STRATED REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD DEBATE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THIS RULING NOR HAS HE MADE A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARK A. KEARNEY ON 10/30/17. 10/31/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER AND EMAILED TO COUNSEL.(jaa, )

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

CHRISTOPHER LEE SIRMONS

CIVIL ACTION

v.
NO. 14-6790
DAVID A. DIGUELIELMO, et al

ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of October 2017, upon considering Mr. Sirmons's Petition for
writ of habeas corpus (ECF Doc. No. 1), the Response (ECF Doc. No. 10), Replies (ECF Doc.
Nos. 11, 12, 13), a supplemental petition filed in ECF Doc. No. 17-4283 but dismissed and
considered as part of this case (No. 17-4283, ECF Doc. No. 3) and available state court records,
and after careful and independent study of United States Magistrate Judge David R.
Strawbridge's September 28, 2017 Report and Recommendation (ECF Doc. No. 15), it is

ORDERED:
1.

Judge Strawbridge's extensive well-reasoned Report and Recommendation (ECF

Doc. No. 15) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2.

Mr. Sirmons's arguments in his supplemental petition (No. 17-4283) are timely as

they relate back to the earlier petition and, for the same reasons fully described by Judge
Strawbridge including the failure to present these arguments to the state court in the proper
manner and thus procedurally defaulted, these arguments do not separately warrant granting

habeas relief;
3.

Mr. Sirmons's Petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF Doc. No. 1) is DENIED;

4.

A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT issue as Mr. Sirmons has not

demonstrated reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of the procedural aspects of this
ruling nor has he made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right 1; and,
5.

1

The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
2