DICKERSON v. KAUFFMAN et al

Filing 16

ORDERTHAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING; THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THE CASE.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 4/17/17. 4/17/17 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
____________________________________
ISSAC DICKERSON
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-6064
:
KEVIN KAUFFMAN, et al.
:
Respondents.
:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of April 2017, upon careful and independent consideration of
the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and all related filings, and upon review of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski, to which no objections
have been filed, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED1;

2.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

and without an evidentiary hearing;
3.

There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability2; and

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.

It is so ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Cynthia M. Rufe
____________________
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

1

As set forth in the thorough Report and Recommendation, although Petitioner’s claims are not
procedurally defaulted, they are without merit. Petitioner failed to establish that he suffered prejudice from
counsel’s failure to request certain jury instructions in light of the jury charge as a whole and the substantial
evidence of guilt; the claim of ineffective PCRA counsel is not cognizable; appellate counsel was not ineffective for
failing to raise the issue of trial counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness on direct appeal; and Petitioner failed to raise a
prima facie claim that his venire panel did not reflect a fair cross section of the community.
2

There is no basis for concluding that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have
been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal citation omitted).